Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Fleetwood Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Abersoch Water Bill [Lords],

Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORTS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total export of British goods during the first six months of this year and 1925, respectively, of a kind on which Customs duties were imposed during the years 1925 and 1926?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It is not possible to give complete figures of the exports of goods on which import duties were imposed in 1925 and 1926, since the duties are chargeable, in some cases, only on parts of the groups into which exports are classified. The identifiable exports of such goods, however, amounted, in the first half of 1925 to approximately £14,000,000, and in the first half of 1927 to approximately £15,000,000.

KEY INDUSTRIES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the imports and exports of key industries goods during the first six months of the present year, and, for comparison, during the corresponding periods of 1925 and 1926?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend may remember that I stated in the House on 31st May that I would consider what further particulars could be published with respect to key industry goods. It is not possible to give complete information as to imports and exports of these goods, but it has now been arranged that particulars of the imports from foreign countries of goods on which key industry duties have been paid shall be published quarterly in the Accounts of Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom. The July issue of these Accounts will contain particulars for the first two quarters of the current year. As key industry duties are not leviable on goods produced in and imported from the British Empire, the figures to be published will not cover such imports.

WINE TRADE (RESTRICTIONS ON CLEARANCES).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience, damage, and loss caused to the wine trade through clearance from bonded warehouses being restricted for as long a period as three months; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation reducing the maximum period of restriction from three months to one month?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I expressed regret in my Budget Statement that it
had been necessary to cause inconvenience to the wine trade by imposing restrictions on clearances so early as the 1st February. But, as I pointed out, the rate of clearance at that date had become so abnormal that unless immediate action had been taken the revenue for this year would have suffered. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention of imposing restrictions on clearances for a longer period than is essential in the interests of the Revenue, but I could not agree to limit the existing powers of the Treasury in the manner suggested.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that the greatest interest of this country is a greater output in industry, and that the more you release the wine trade the more production naturally goes down as was proved during the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would not attempt to answer that question.

GERMANY (ARMIES OF OCCUPATION).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any reduction in the last year in the armies of occupation on the Rhine; and, if so, when the reduction took place and in what it consisted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): During the 12 months ending June, 1927, the strengths of the Allied Armies of Occupation have fallen by, approximately, 6,000.

Mr. TREVELYAN: How many of these are our troops and how many are French?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must have notice as to the actual figures, but I think ours are approximately 1,000 down.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TIDWORTH BARRACKS (GARRISON THEATRE).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the garrison theatre in Tidworth Barracks, the cost of which was subscribed by officers and troops of the garrison, has been handed
over to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, and is used as a cinema theatre; that there is a large cinema theatre adjacent to the barracks, specially built for the purpose, and for which the War Department is drawing a high ground rent; and whether he will consider the transfer of the garrison theatre to the garrison committee for the use of the troops, who are now deprived of its use for their own entertainments and dances for which it was constructed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Garrison Theatre, Tidworth, is rented by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes from the War Department as a cinema theatre, but the troops have the right to use the theatre at stated times for dances, concerts, lectures, etc. I am informed that the present arrangements are considered satisfactory.

Colonel DAY: What is the rent?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Speaking from memory, I think it is £189 a year, but I shall have to have notice to give the exact figure.

Colonel DAY: Is there any difference in the rent paid for the theatre by either of the forces that rent it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly not. It is rented by a lessee, and the lessee is the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute.

MEN ON ACTIVE SERVICE (CABLES).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office has refused to cable to a soldier on active service in China the information of his wife's death in England, on the ground that they cannot do so at the public expense; and, in view of the fact that many private soldiers and their friends are quite unable to afford the necessary expense to cable themselves, will he reconsider this refusal in the case of soldiers on distant active service?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I cannot authorise the sending of private cables to soldiers whether in China or elsewhere, at the public expense.

Mr. THURTLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make an exception in the case of the death of a wife?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I very much regret to have to refuse, but if I make an exception there is no end to exceptions.

Mr. HARRIS: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider making the death of the wife the one exception?

KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

Mr. HARRIS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War for what purpose he intends to use the Knightsbridge Barracks; and, if it is not required for War Office purposes, will he consider handing it over to a public authority for housing purposes?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Knightsbridge Barracks are still required for military purposes for which no alternative accommodation is available.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that these stables on a most valuable site are not being used, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it extravagant not to make full use of a valuable site of this character in the centre of London?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Use, and good use, is being made of the barracks.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that only the dwelling parts of the building are in use and that the valuable stables are lying practically vacant?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War what have been the numbers of the Shanghai Defence Force from the commencement of the expedition to the present time; and what has been the cost to the country each month up to the latest date available?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the right hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In December, 1926, one battalion proceeded from Gibraltar to China and on 25th January, 1927, a Royal Marine battalion left England for China. Both these battalions were subsequently attached to
the Shanghai Defence Force. In January, 1927, the Shanghai Defence Force was despatched, comprising eight infantry battalions and ancillary troops from England and the Colonies and four infantry battalions and ancillary troops from India. In April, 1927, the 15th Brigade of four infantry battalions with ancillary troops proceded from England to China. In June, 1927, two of the battalions which went out with the Shanghai Defence Force were detached from the Force for Tientsin and Wei-hai-wei respectively. The four battalions and ancillary troops from India are now under orders to return to India. It is not possible to allocate month by month the expenditure on the troops sent to China. But the extra cost to Army funds of the troops referred to above (excluding the Marine battalion, the cost of which is borne on naval funds) is estimated as follows: Up to 31st March, 1927, as provided in the Supplementary Estimate for 1926, £950,000. Subsequent to 31st March, 1927, for capital and transport charges payable in 1927—approximately £1,000,000. and for extra maintenance charges—approximately £250,000 a month.

UNITED STATES (CONSULTATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consult or has consulted with the United States of America as to the simultaneous recognition of any new de facto Government in China?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): As was stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on the 2nd May last, His Majesty's Government is in constant communication with the Governments of the United States of America and Japan on all matters which concern their joint interests in China. Such consultation would include the question of recognition if it should at any time arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House whether there is any risk of the United States Government recognising any Government in China before we do so, and can we take it that the consultation between us and the United States Government is likely to obviate that disaster?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have thought that at the moment there is no risk of anyone recognising any Government in China, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that we certainly should not recognise any de facto Government in China without consulting the other Governments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say if that would be the policy of the United States Government also?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot say that. It must lie within the discretion of any other Government as to what exact action they adopt.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 11 and 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if there are any private schools in Scotland recognised by the Scottish Education Department; if so, how many; and in which education areas are they situated; and
(2) if there are any private schools in Scotland which receive grants from the Scottish Education Department payable out of the Scottish Education Fund; and, if so, what is the system regulating payment of grant?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): A complete list of the schools which receive grants from the Scottish Education Department is given in Table 1 of the Department's Annual Return. Where the school is not under the direct control of an education authority, the name is printed in italic type, and the grant is paid either out of the Education (Scotland) Fund, under the Miscellaneous Grants Regulations, 1925, or out of the Vote, under the Regulations as to Reformatory and Industrial Schools, 1921. Apart from grant-earning schools, between 50 and 60 private schools in Scotland are annually inspected by the Department in virtue of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1878, and many of them present their pupils for the leaving certificate examination. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the latest list of these private schools grouped under education areas.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure that the education provided for children in private schools is of an equal standard to that demanded by the Department in schools controlled by the education authorities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Unless any question arises as to the adequacy of the school accommodation provided by an education authority, the Department have no statutory right to inquire into the education provided for children in private schools or to determine its standard.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Are we to understand that any parent can send his children to a private school without their having to undergo the same scheme of examination they would have to undergo in an ordinary publicly-controlled school?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is the duty of the education authority to ensure that every child in its area receives efficient education, whether in a public or a private school or otherwise.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Am I to understand that education authorities can demand that pupils of given ages must be presented for examination by the authorities' inspectors?

Sir J. GILMOUR: They must be satisfied that the child is being properly educated.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Are these schools in all cases inspected by the board, or are there any exceptions?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending the hon. Member a list of all the schools that are excepted.

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, and when, the Government propose to introduce legislation extended to Scotland on the lines of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer to the reply which I gave on 21st June to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen).

Mr. STEPHEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a lot of communications from various organisations, and is he now convinced that there is a widespread desire for such legislation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received some communications, but they are not numerous.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Members of Parliament have received widespread support from various shopkeeping interests, and particularly from supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, for this kind of legislation?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has come to any arrangement with the Glasgow Education Authority as to the new schools which are to be built in that city; and, if not, when he will be in a position to make a statement?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The position with regard to this matter has not altered in the 13 days which have elapsed since the date of the hon. Member's last question on the subject. In reply to the latter part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on that occasion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate idea as to when these negotiations will come to a conclusion?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think it is possible to give any definite date. This is a very big problem, and the discussions, of course, have covered a considerable time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the negotiations have extended over a period of years, and that there are certain schools in a very bad condition, cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least make temporary arrangements for the schools in a bad condition to be replaced or reconditioned?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am satisfied that the Departments and the authorities are discussing the matter, and every attempt will be made to expedite it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman promise us a statement before we rise?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot give a definite promise.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the first available opportunity.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE (PRISONERS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons who are at present in prison as a result of any offence arising from the late coal dispute, and the various counties in which the offences took place?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Twenty-one persons are at present serving sentences of imprisonment for offences arising out of the coal dispute. All the offences were committed in Fifeshire.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any deputation with a view to mitigating the sentences on these persons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received certain representations, and I have given them careful consideration and have not found it possible to make any alterations.

SLUM CLEARANCE, GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 18 and 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number of houses at present under construction under the slum clearance schemes in Glasgow, the number expected to be completed by the end of the year, and the average rent of those houses, including rates, and
(2) What steps have been taken by the Glasgow local authority, in accordance with their statutory powers, to require the owners to make habitable the 1,300 houses in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow, which have been declared by the sanitary authority as unfit for human habitation, until new houses can be provided for the people concerned?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am endeavouring to ascertain the information desired by the hon. Member in these questions, and I shall communicate with him after the inquiries which are now being made have been completed.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer if I put it down for this day week?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir.

SMALL HOLDINGS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. STEPHEN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the proportion of the amount available for small holdings that was actually spent by his Department in this connection last year and the previous year, respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The amount spent for the land settlement purposes of the Small Landholders Acts, Small Holding Colonies Acts and Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, during 1925–26 and 1926–27 was £150,039 and £141,611 respectively.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the widespread demand in Scotland for small holdings, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is advisable to spend up to the full figure of his estimate of £175,000?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We are very nearly doing so, and I would point out that you cannot judge these things by a single year, for it is carried over in a great many cases.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware there would be a great deal more satisfaction in Scotland if he were overspending his estimate rather than underspending it?

STEAMSHIP SERVICE, STORNOWAY.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ascertain from the mail contractors the approximate date when they expect to have the proposed fast new commodious ship on the Stornoway service?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir; this will be done as soon as arrangements for a new contract have been substantially settled.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May I ask when that will be?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A meeting is taking place this week.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will it be this year, or next year?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Some time, or never?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINES DEPARTMENT.

Mr. NAYLOR: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of hours per week normally worked by members of his Departmental staff; what proportion of the staff are entitled to holidays in excess of four weeks per annum; and the maximum period of annual holiday allowed in the higher grades?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The minimum hours worked by the staff of the Mines Department are those fixed for the Civil Service generally—42 per week with a half holiday on Saturday if the state of the work permits. One-fifth of the staff at headquarters are entitled, subject to the exigencies of the public service, to holidays in excess of four weeks per annum. The maximum period of annual leave allowed to the higher grades is 48 days. In the conditions which have existed in the last few years, however, it has not been possible to pay much attention to these minimum hours of attendance and maximum periods of leave owing to the amount of work which has fallen on the staff.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do his best during his tenure of office to get the same hours for people down the mines as are worked by those in the Mines Department, and the same number of holidays with pay?

Mr. LUNN: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the name of the new medical adviser to the Mine Department and his qualifications to enable him to deal with the various diseases peculiar to the mining industry?

Colonel LANE FOX: The last date for receiving applications for this appointment is 31st July, and after that the qualifications of the applicants must be carefully considered. The appointment cannot, therefore, be made for some time, but will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. LUNN: If I put a question down for the first day after the Recess, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think he will be able to give me a reply then?

Colonel LANE FOX: Oh. yes, certainly.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is this a new appointment?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes.

STATIONERY OFFICE (PAPER SUPPLIES).

Viscount SANDON: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of Stationery Office paper supplies comes from within the British Empire; and whether he will give a complete list of the allocation of all such consumption by this Office, as to the country of origin, of the raw material, and the manufactured product?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The whole of the paper purchased by the Stationery Office is obtained from British mills with the exception of certain special papers and cards which are not made at all in this country, and for which no satisfactory British substitute exists. In view of this policy, separate statistics are not kept regarding the origin of purchases, but the total obtained from abroad certainly does not exceed 2 per cent. The source of the raw material is unidentifiable in the manufactured product, and the Stationery Office has no information as to the countries of origin.

Viscount SANDON: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a stipulation, as regards the 2 per cent. which comes from foreign mills, that the country of origin of the raw material should be within the British Empire?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think there would be any advantage in that.

INSPECTORS.

Mr. CLARRY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of inspectors employed by the Government in the various Departments, showing variations in numbers compared with the year 1914; and if he will consider how reductions in the number of inspectors can best be effected?

Mr. McNEILL: A statement giving the particulars asked for is being prepared, and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the latter half of the question, the number of inspectors employed, in common with other staffs, is under constant review.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

CLOSED COLLIERIES, MONMOUTH AND GLAMORGAN.

Mr. BARKER: 24 and 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) if he is aware that about 1,500 miners are receiving notice to terminate their employment at the Prince of Wales Colliery, Abercarn, Monmouthshire; and the reasons given to the Mines Department for closing this colliery;
(2) if he is aware that the Vivian Colliery, Abertillery, Monmouthshire, has been closed for over one year; that this colliery has been equipped with new machinery at great cost; and why this mine has been closed down for this long period?

Colonel LANE FOX: The reason given to me in each case is want of trade.

Mr. BARKER: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries that have been closed in the County of Monmouth since January, 1920, and the number of mines reopened during that period; and the number of collieries at present working in the County of Monmouth and the names of the mines affected in the first part of the question?

Colonel LANE FOX: Of the mines which were at work on 1st January, 1920, 41 are now closed. At present there are 104 mines at work, including 27 which have opened since 1st January, 1920. I will send the hon. Member lists of the mines closed and opened.

Mr. G. HALL: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that some 2,000 miners have terminated their employment at the Nixon's Navigation Colliery, Mountain Ash; the reasons given to the Mines Department for the closing of this colliery; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

Colonel LANE FOX: The company inform me that this pit has been temporarily closed owing to lack of trade; that it will be reopened as soon as trade conditions permit; and that meanwhile some of the men normally employed there will be found employment at other pits belonging to the company.

GUSS HARNESS

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines when he proposes to
set up the promised inquiry into the use of the harness known as the Guss; what will be the personnel; and what will be the Terms of Reference?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have to-day appointed Sir H. Frank Heath, G.B.E., K.C.B., Mr. C. G. Douglas, M.D., F.R.S., and Mr. George Gibb, Consulting Mining Engineer, to be a Committee:
to inquire and report whether the use of the harness known as the 'guss' for hauling wheelless tubs in the Somerset coalfield is harmful from the point of view either of health or of safety, and if so, what practicable methods of working could be employed to obviate its use.''
Sir Frank Heath will be the Chairman.

Mr. LUNN: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think there ought to be some representation of the workers upon such a Committee, and that at least there ought to be a representative from the particular coalfield who knows the practical uses of the guss?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. The Committee will be able to get evidence on all these points, and it is far better that the experts should come before the Committee to give evidence of their knowledge and then that the Committee should form their own opinion.

Mr. LUNN: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not asked the Miners' Federation to send a member to sit on the Committee, and does he not think that they should be represented on such a Committee?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, I have neither asked the Miners' Federation nor the Mining Association. This Committee is a Committee which is absolutely independent. They will be able to hear the expert opinion of all the witnesses they call.

SOUTH WALES COLLIERIES.

Mr. G. HALL: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines to state the number of mines working full time in South Wales; and for how many weeks have these collieries worked full time during the past two months?

Colonel LANE FOX: The returns relating to time worked at coal mines are tabulated not according to the number of collieries but on the basis of the
number of workpeople employed. From this it appears that, in South Wales, during the week ended 2nd July, 102,600 wage-earners, or 53 per cent. of the whole, were employed at pits which lost no time owing to bad trade. During the previous two months the corresponding percentage was on the average 73 per cent. per week.

PIT PONIES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines the approximate number of pit ponies in use in the coal mines of this country; what is the difference in cost between their use and that of mechanical haulage; and how far are they being superseded by mechanical haulage?

Colonel LANE FOX: The number of pit ponies employed underground has decreased during the last four years from 65,979 to 56,745 and the decrease is due no doubt in part to the substitution of mechanical methods of haulage. I regret that information as to relative costs is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RYE-WINCHELSEA ROAD (MILITARY TOLL-GATES).

Mr. HARRIS: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to do away with the military toll-gates on the Rye-to-Winchelsea road; whether an arrangement has yet been come to with the local authorities to take over this road; and, if so, on what terms?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Negotiations are proceeding between the Departments and local authorities concerned for the taking over by the latter of the road to which the hon. Member refers. The exact terms of the agreement are still under discussion, but I fully expect that a final settlement will very shortly be reached. The terms shall then be communicated to the hon. Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the owners of the land along the side of this extraordinarily bad road are being asked to contribute towards the cost?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not know. I should require notice of that question.

CANNOCK LIGHT RAILWAY (COAL TRAFFIC).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport what Orders have been granted to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company in connection with the Cannock Light Railway development for transport of coal; when the Order was originally made; how often it has been necessary to renew it; and what developments have taken place within the past 10 years to meet the expanding increase of coal output?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the reply is rather long, perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The London and North Western Railway Company, one of the constituent companies of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, obtained in 1913 an Order for the transfer, with modifications, to them of the powers for a light railway granted previously to an independent company by Acts of Parliament of 1901 and 1903 and Orders of 1907 and 1910. Between 1916 and 1921 the powers were extended from year to year by five Orders made under the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Act, 1915. A further Order was granted to the London and North Western Railway Company in 1921 for alterations in the scheme and for an extension of time, and a further extension of time Order was granted to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company in 1924. In 1926, the latter company again applied for an extension of time Order in respect of that part of the railway, 2¾ miles in length, which had not been constructed, the remaining 3½ miles of railway having been completed and opened for traffic. This application was not granted. I understand that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company have made, and are at present making, improvements in the facilities provided at certain marshalling and exchange sidings in the area, and I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of a letter I have recently received from the company in the matter.

CHARS-A-BANCS.

Mr. LOOKER: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making a regulation that all chars-a-bancs proceeding on trips of more than one day's
duration shall carry an attendant in addition to the driver so that the safety and interests of the passengers in case of emergency may be safeguarded?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no power to make a regulation of this kind.

Mr. LOOKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman concur in the view that it is desirable that these chars-a-bancs shall carry an extra attendant?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not go quite so far as that, but I concur in the view that certáin inspections and examinations are necessary.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is this matter under the consideration of his Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is no more under the consideration of the Department than many of these questions, but it can be dealt with under the Road Traffic Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (FLATS).

Colonel DAY: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has come to any decision with reference to the introduction of legislation to meet cases which may arise in the future for the protection of tenants occupying flats of buildings where the owner makes a demand on his Department for the immediate removal by the Post Office of all telephones used by the tenants occupying such places?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): No, Sir. It would, in any event, be impossible to introduce legislation on this subject during the current Session.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing it in the next Session in view of the very great unrest in the minds of people who have telephones in their flats?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the circumstances in this particular case have been satisfactorily adjusted, and I will consider the whole question.

TELEPHONE POLES, NORTH LONDON.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the poles carrying telephone wires erected on the sidewalks
in many thoroughfares in the North London district are intended to be permanent or temporary; and, if the latter, when they are likely to be removed and the wires placed underground?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The retention or removal of the poles in question depends entirely on the development of the telephone service in the respective neighbourhoods. In residential districts it is the usual practice for the main wires to the exchange to be run in underground cables, and for the wires connecting these main cables to subscribers' premises to be erected overhead from distributing poles. These poles remain until the density of telephone subscribers has increased sufficiently to justify the greater expense of underground distribution.

Mr. BOWERMAN: As these poles may probably be of a permanent character will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of attaching a light, so that pedestrians in foggy and bad weather can be safeguarded?

HOLBORN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.

Mr. HARRIS: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the capital cost of the new Holborn Exchange; and how many lines it will feed when complete?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The approximate capital cost of the new Holborn Exchange which will have a total capacity of 9,400 subscribers' lines, is £374,000, including site and building.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the cost per line will work out very expensive and that it will not be profitable but will cause a loss to the Post Office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think so; otherwise, we should not embark upon it.

WELSH DISTRICTS (LANGUAGE).

Sir R. THOMAS: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the regular policy of his Department to appoint Welsh-speaking staffs to all post offices in predominantly Welsh districts; and, if so, what practical tests are imposed?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is not the regular policy to appoint Welsh-speaking staffs to post offices in Welsh
districts, but in certain towns the Postmaster is required to possess a knowledge of Welsh. No special tests are imposed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES (REGULATION) ACT.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of prosecutions under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, during the last year to the nearest convenient date; the number of convictions; the amount of fines imposed; and the number of inspectors employed under this Act for this work?

Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The number of prosecutions which were instituted under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, during the year ended 14th July was 103. Convictions were obtained in 80 cases, and fines amounting to £225 13s. 0d. were imposed. The number of inspectors at present employed under the Act is 16.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Does the Minister not think there ought to be a great increase in the number of inspectors in view of the large number of men there are who are being badly paid and dare not complain because of intimidation and victimization?

Mr. THOMSON: I understand that since last December the number of inspectors has been increased by five, and that they are now able to make test inspections.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what drainage operations for the improvement of agricultural land are being undertaken by drainage authorities; what is the amount of Government aid in respect of each undertaking; and whether any pressure is being brought to bear on any drainage authority to carry out this work?

Mr. THOMSON: My right hon. Friend has no definite information in regard to works now being undertaken by drainage authorities except in those cases where schemes are being assisted by grants from the Ministry. The total number of such schemes to which grants have been given or promised is 47; the grant varies from
33½ per cent. to 50 per cent. of the total net cost, and the Ministry's total commitments are estimated at £337,000. As regards the last part of the Question, my right hon. Friend has no statutory authority enabling him to compel drainage authorities to carry out any drainage works.

ELECTRIC POWER.

Major BRAITHWAITE: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information as to how many farms in this country are provided with electric power?

Mr. THOMSON: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the number of farms in this country that are equipped with electric power; but according to returns collected in connection with the Census of Production in 1925, there were in that year rather more than 700 electric engines in use on farms in England and Wales.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and learned Member say how many of these engines were supplied by the municipal authorities, or were they supplied direct from their own plant?

Mr. THOMSON: I shall require notice of that question.

ARABLE LAND.

Major BRAITHWAITE: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture at what rate per annum is arable land going out of cultivation?

Mr. THOMSON: The average annual reduction in arable land in England and Wales during the five years 1921–1926 has been 214,000 acres, the reduction in the last of those years being 134,000 acres. I would direct the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report on the Agricultural Output of England and Wales, 1925, in which the changes in the agricultural area in this country are discussed.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: How much of this land which has gone from arable land has been laid down to permanent pasture, which can hardly be described as going out of cultivation?

Mr. THOMSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

FOOD PRODUCTION.

Major BRAITHWAITE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the maximum money value of food per annum that could be produced in this country if the land was fully employed?

Mr. THOMSON: I am afraid it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to make any estimate of this hypothetical question.

Major COLFOX: Are there any means of estimating whether land is fully employed or not?

Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is possible to utilise the land better than it is being utilised to-day for the production of food?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in the case of a man at Forest Row, Sussex, it has been decided that an agricultural worker who employs and works with two or three other agricultural workers in the woods in winter in cutting wood for firewood, pea boughs and bean sticks, and for besoms for path sweeping, which he makes in the bad weather, and in the season similarly works grass cutting, hay making, and market and other gardening, is liable for unemployment contributions in respect of the men so employed; that such a charge is impossible out of profits, which barely exceed the wage of an agricultural labourer, and means the extinction of this village industry; and whether he will take some steps, whether legislative or otherwise, to preserve this and similar surviving village industries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend is aware, I inquired into this case a short time ago, and on the facts then reported it seemed clear that for the main part of the work unemployment insurance contributions are payable. In order, however, to make sure that the facts have been fully ascertained, I will make further inquiry and consider the matter again.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am obliged to the hon. Member. Does he also realise that the bulk of this work is done in the woods not under cover, that the earnings of the employer are only those of an agricultural worker, that he is really only a nominal employer, and that this village industry must perish if these charges are laid upon it.

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. These are exactly the points to which I have referred and upon which I want further information. Of course, my hon. and learned Friend will realise that what we have to consider is whether or not this particular occupation comes within the definition of those occupations, such as agriculture or forestry, which are exempted under the Act.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, SCOTLAND.

Mr. E. BROWN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of unemployed persons in Scotland during the first six months of 1927 who have been disallowed benefit under the National Insurance Act, and are now in receipt of relief from the parish councils; and whether he will give the amount of extra expenditure falling upon the parish councils?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of my reply to his question on the 10th May last, in which I indicated that I have no information as to how many persons in Scotland who have been disallowed unemployment benefit have subsequently been found to be entitled to parish relief.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask if there are any means of getting statistics relating to the whole area as the answer of the right hon. Gentleman only gives statistics for certain principal towns. Ought not figures to be available for the whole area so that parish councils may get some idea of the burden to be borne by them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it would be costly to undertake. I really do not think the advantage would be commensurate with the cost.

Mr. BROWN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the transfer of unemployed from the Insurance Fund to the Poor Law is becoming a very big
issue in Scotland, and would it not be well for him to take steps to get this information?

ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW.

Mr. NAYLOR: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that no notice is displayed at the entrance to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, informing visitors that the conservatories and plant houses are closed during certain hours of the day, and that in consequence considerable annoyance is caused to those visitors who are debarred from entering the houses after paying the full price of admission to the gardens charged on Tuesdays and Fridays; and whether he will make arrangements for the display at the entrance of a conspicuous notice showing the hours during which the conservatories and plant houses are closed?

Mr. THOMSON: My right hon. Friend's attention has been recently called to this matter; and he is making arrangements of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

OXYGEN RECEIVER (ACCIDENT, ADSWOOD).

Colonel DAY: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to an incident which happened to an oxygen receiver belonging to the Liquid Air Company at the Bolton Super-heater Works, Adswood, in which two men lost their lives; and whether the officers of his Department are investigating this occurrence?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): Yes, Sir. The circumstances of this accident have been carefully investigated by the Factory Department. Their report shows that it was caused by the clothing of the two unfortunate men catching fire when they were inside the receiver. There was no sign, however, of any explosion, and it has not been possible to obtain any definite evidence as to how the fire originated. Inquiry will be made into the practice in other works where similar plant is in use with a view to considering what precautions are necessary to prevent any such accident
in future. This is the first ease of the kind that has come to the notice of the Department.

Colonel DAY: Can the Under-Secretary say whether this receiver contained oxygen before the men entered?

Captain HACKING: I would like to draw attention to the coroner's summing up, in which he said it was clear from the facts that one of the unfortunate victims had received no instructions to go inside the receiver; and it was not necessary, I understand, for the men to enter the receiver in order to carry out the work entrusted to them.

Mr. RADFORD: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he is aware that the two companies named have done all in their power to find out the cause of this accident, and to prevent any recurrence of it and both they and the Members of Parliament for Stockport, where these works are situated, are quite as concerned about this accident as any other hon. Member of this House?

Captain HACKING: Everyone is concerned about the accident, and we are helping investigations to prevent accidents of that kind recurring.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Commander BELLAIRS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that British civil aviation is falling behind some other countries, whether he will consider setting up an independent public inquiry into the whole question of civil aviation and the comparative merits of control by a military department and entire independence of military control, as in the case of the mercantile marine?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by adopting my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal.

NEWFOUNDLAND POWER AND PAPER COMPANY.

Mr. LUNN: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any representations have been made to the British Government by the Government of Newfoundland regarding the financial position
of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company; and the nature of such representations and the reply thereto?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my Noble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) on the 28th June.

Mr. LUNN: In that answer there was no reply to the point mentioned in the question as to whether the Newfoundland Government had made any representations. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the total amount of the guarantee of the Newfoundland Government is similar to that of this country?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member is mistaken. In the answer to which I have referred, I said that a communication had been received by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, but that I was unable at that time to make any statement with regard to the negotiations which were proceeding.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the sale is complete or not?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the subject of the next question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the British taxpayers are responsible for the interest on this loan?

Mr. LUNN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sale has been completed of the Cornerbrook Power and Paper Company's works, Newfoundland, to the International Paper Company, United States of America; what security there is that the money used out of the £2,000,000 guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act will not be lost to this country; and if he will state the names of the British Government representatives on the board of directors and the fees paid to them for their services?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I can add nothing to the reply I gave to my Noble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) on the 28th June. In reply to the third part of the question, the Treasury director on the board of the Newfoundland Power
and Paper Company, Limited, is Sir George Stapylton Barnes, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., who is paid a fee of £600 per annum.

Sir F. WISE: Is the Treasury director in Newfoundland at the present time?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I think not.

Sir F. WISE: Has he been to Newfoundland?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the interests of the British taxpayer being watched in the case of this sale, and may we be assured that their interests will prevail over all other interests?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly. The belief of the Treasury is that if this sale is carried through the security of the British taxpayers will not be prejudiced in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.

Sir G. WHELER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of direct taxation paid under the present basis of taxation by a married man with three children where such a man has an earned income of either £250 a year, £500 a year, £1,000 a year, or £10,000 a year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the information he desires, as regards Income Tax and Super-tax, in Table 48 (A) on page 74 and Table 66 (c) on page 97 of the 69th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 2783).

Sir G. WHELER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the amounts of revenue raised under direct taxation and under indirect taxation, respectively, in the financial year 1926–27?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The following were the amounts:

Direct Taxation
…
£424,874,000


Indirect Taxation
…
£234,618,000

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask in what category the Motor Vehicle Duties are?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They come under direct taxation.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the tax on commercial vehicles included as direct taxation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; these figures include the Motor Licence Duties under the heading of direct taxation, so far as I am at present aware. I may be wrong, but I think that that is so. I should have to have notice in order to make certain.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of National Savings Certificates exchanged into Four and a-half per cent. Conversion Loan of 1940–44?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The value of the Savings Certificates, including accrued interest, exchanged up to 30th June last into Four and a-half per cent. Conversion Loan, is £720,602.

Sir F. NELSON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount outstanding of National Savings Certificates, including interest to date, as on 30th June, 1927?

Mr. CHURCHILL: About £493,500,000.

FACTORY LAW.

Viscount SANDON: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in cases where he decides that, in view of the trade depression, certain otherwise desirable reforms in factory and workshop law should not now be imposed, he will, instead of omitting them from the Government's proposals, insert them with a proviso as to delayed application?

Captain HACKING: In the event of any such decision, the suggestion of my Noble Friend would be considered.

BOGUS INVITATIONS (POLICE).

Mr. NAYLOR: 58.
asked the Home Secretary what was the extent of the police assistance granted for investigating the circumstances in which bogus invitations were issued to a party given on 13th July; what was the number of police officers detailed for this duty; and whether any claim will be made by the Home Office against either the persons responsible for issuing the bogus invitations
or the person giving the party for reimbursement to the Department of the costs so incurred?

Captain HACKING: No investigation by the police took place, and no expenses, therefore, were incurred.

CEYLON CONSTITUTION (COMMISSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the Terms of Reference remitted to the Commission proceeding to Ceylon to consider a further extension of self-government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Terms of Reference are now under consideration, and will be announced as soon as the arrangements for the appointment of the Commission are complete.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Commission going out during the coming cold season, and may the Report be expected during next Session?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to give the names of the members of this Commission?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certain invitations have been sent out, and I hope it will be possible to give the Terms of Reference and the names before the House rises for the Recess.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Terms of Reference include communal representation as one of the matters for consideration?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the Terms of Reference will be general—something in the nature of making recommendations as to any changes in the Constitution. I do not think that detailed Terms of Reference are contemplated. The exact wording is now being discussed.

LANDING GROUNDS AND AIR PORTS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the comparative figures for the British Empire to the 3,806 air ports or landing stations
in the United States of America; and what are the figures for Great Britain?

Captain BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. The number of landing grounds and air ports in the British Empire is 845, of which 237 are in Great Britain. I should add that information is not available as to the principles on which places are classified in the United States as air ports or landing stations, the latter especially being a/ very elastic term, and it is, therefore, not possible to say whether the British figures are fairly comparable with the American.

CHIEF OF AIR STAFF.

Commander BELLAIRS: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the appointment of the present chief of the Air Staff was made subject to any specified time limit?

Captain BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (REPORT).

Mr. O'NEILL: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the price of the recent Report on Public Libraries is such as to prevent its general distribution among members of public library committees; and, in view of the desirability of a wider circulation being given to this Report, will he arrange with the Stationery Office for the issue of an abridged edition at a cheaper price?

Mr. McNEILL: Since this Report was published on the 14th June, about 1,400 copies have been sold, and sales are proceeding steadily. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that the price is interfering with its circulation among those interested. I am unable to adopt the suggestion for an abridged edition, for which I believe there is no precedent, and which would prejudice the circulation of the full edition, and lead to confusion in references to the publication.

Mr. O'NEILL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Carnegie Trustees have received numerous representations in favour of supplying this Report free to public libraries?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

YORK COLLEGE FOR GIRLS (STATE SCHOLARSHIPS).

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education why he has withdrawn from the pupils of the York College for girls the right to compete for State scholarships notwithstanding that the college is recognised as efficient by the Board of Education and is recognised for superannuation purposes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Only scholars attending grant-aided secondary schools are eligible for the award of State scholarships, and the York College for girls is not, and never has been, a grant-aided school.

SUDAN (INSANE PERSONS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities exist in the Sudan for the detention and treatment of persons certified as insane; and whether it is the practice in the Sudan to detain such persons in ordinary prisons?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that there are no regular lunatic asylums in the Sudan, but that, as regards Europeans, mild cases of insanity are dealt with in the hospitals, while violent or dangerous cases are sent to Cairo as soon as possible, being housed in such accommodation as may be available en route, and being admitted to an institution on arrival there. Cases of insanity amongst Sudanese are always, when possible, sent to their homes, recourse being only had to hospitals, prisons or such accommodation as is available locally, in violent or dangerous cases.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of that answer, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that some accommodation is available for lunatics in the Sudan, and does he not consider that it is a very serious thing for lunatics to be set free?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have given the hon. Gentleman what I understand to be the general situation. We have no actual details at the Foreign Office, and, if details were required,
reference would have to be made to the Sudan Government. I am quite prepared to do that if it is desired.

CARDIGAN UNION (CHILDREN).

Colonel DAY: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether alternative and separate accommodation has been found by the Cardigan Board of Guardians for the children under 14 years of age who were living in the local institution contrary to the provisions of the Poor Law Institutions Order, 1913?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. The guardians, however, propose taking immediate steps for the provision of a separate home for children.

Colonel DAY: Did not the Ministry serve a notice on the guardians for the purpose of making them provide homes for these children outside the institution?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have heard the last part of my answer. I said that the guardians propose taking immediate steps for the provision of a separate home for children

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. E. BROWN: 70.
asked the Minister of Health the number of claimants for widows' pensions up to 30th June, 1927, whose claims have been disallowed and the principal reasons for such disallowment; and the total number of claims received and allowed?

Sir K. WOOD: It is desirable to distinguish between rejections of claims made by the widows of men who died before the commencement of the Act and those made by the widows of men who died thereafter. Up to the 30th June, 1927, there were 48,172 rejections in the former category and 9,912 in the latter. The principal reasons for rejection were, in the case of the former, (1) that there was no child of the qualified age, and (2) that the husband did not belong to the insurable class; and, in the case of the latter, (1) that the husband was not an insured person at the date of his death, and (2) that the required number of contributions
had not been paid by or in respect of him. The total number of claims of both types was 275,856, of which 210,801 were allowed up to the 30th June last.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are still cases outstanding in which application was sent in in March of this year, and can he say why a decision has not been reached in those cases?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; if any cases have been under consideration for some time it is because insufficient particulars have been supplied, or similar difficulties.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say what reduction in Poor Law relief has taken place?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a different question altogether.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the number of claims allowed exceeds the estimate, or is less than the estimate?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like notice of that question.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "EASTWAY."

Mr. KELLY (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to say whether further legal proceedings are to be taken against the owner of the steamship "Eastway" under the Merchant Shipping Act, in view of the Court's finding at Cardiff attributing blameworthy and culpable conduct to the owner for the loss of the vessel?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

LEGISLATION (AUTUMN SESSION).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Sir JOHN POWER): 45.
asked the Prime Minister what new Bills, if any, will be introduced during the Autumn Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

BIRTH RATE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 71.
asked the Minister of Health the birth rate per 1,000 in Great Britain and for the principal countries in Europe for the last year in respect of which statistics are available?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does the answer include the corrected figures for age distribution and sex distribution of population?

Sir K. WOOD: Some of the figures, I see, are provisional only.

Following is the answer:


BIRTH RATE PER 1,000 POPULATION.


Great Britain
1926
…
18.1




1925
…
18.6



England and Wales
1926
…
17.8




1925
…
18.3



Scotland
1926
…
20.9




1925
…
21.3



Sweden
1926
…
16.9
(provisional).


France
1926
…
18.8
(provisional).


Finland
1925
…
22.3



Germany
1925
…
21.3



Denmark
1924
…
21.9



Switzerland
1925
…
18.4



Netherlands
1926
…
23.8
(provisional).


Belgium
1925
…
19.6



Spain
1925
…
29.4
(provisional).


Hungary
1926
…
20.7
(provisional).


Czechoslovakia
1925
…
25.1



Austria
1924
…
21.7
(provisional).


Italy
1925
…
27.5
(provisional).


Bulgaria
1924
…
39.7
(provisional).


Norway
1925
…
20.0



Republique Socialiste Federative Sovetique de la Russie.*
1924
…
43.6
(provisional).


Republique Socialiste Sovetique de L'Ukraine.*
1923
…
35.4



*These are the only parts of Russia in Europe for which figures are available.

Sir W. DAVISON: 72.
asked the Minister of Health the birth rate per 1,000 in each of the London Boroughs for the years 1901, 1911, 1925, and 1926, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: As regards the figures for 1926, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the other figures, I will furnish my hon. Friend with a copy of the statement given on the 20th of July, 1926.

Following are the figures:


Birth-rate per 1,000 population in Metropolitan Boroughs.


Borough.

1926.


City of London
…
8.0


Inner and Middle Temples
…
6.9


Battersea
…
17.3


Bermondsey
…
20.7


Bethnal Green
…
20.9


Camberwell
…
16.6


Chelsea
…
13.3


Deptford
…
18.2


Finsbury
…
20.6


Fulham
…
16.3


Greenwich
…
17.7


Hackney
…
17.3


Hammersmith
…
16.3


Hampstead
…
12.3


Holborn
…
12.4


Islington
…
18.5


Kensington
…
15.1


Lambeth
…
17.2


Lewisham
…
15.4


Paddington
…
15.4


Poplar
…
21.6


St. Marylebone
…
12.8


St. Pancras
…
16.7


Shoreditch
…
23.3


Southwark
…
20.2


Stepney
…
19.7


Stoke Newington
…
15.6


Wandsworth
…
14.3


Westminster
…
11.3


Woolwich
…
16.8


Administrative County of London
…
17.1

EARTHQUAKE, PALESTINE.

Mr. KELLY (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has as to the casualties and damage in Palestine by earthquake; and whether any monetary assistance is to be rendered to Palestine for the alleviation of suffering?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My latest information is contained in the telegram of the 18th July from the Acting High Commissioner which was published in this morning's newspapers.

ROYAL NAVY (CRUISERS).

Mr. KELLY (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 66.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of His Majesty's
cruisers, armoured and protected, respectively, were in dockyard hands at the commencement of the late War?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Nine protected and seven armoured cruisers were in dockyard hands at the commencement of the War. Of these cruisers, six protected and four armoured cruisers remained attached to their squadron and were therefore shown as allocated to various duties in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question No. 11 of the 13th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 2127).

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. McNEILL; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, "That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

HOUSING.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that receipt of money advanced in persuance of Section ninety-two of the Housing Act, 1925, shall not disqualify the recipient from being a member of the local authority making such advance.
I think I can he assured of the unanimous support of the House in asking leave to bring in this small and very unimportant Bill. If the protestations of hon. Members opposite, in regard to the desirability of creating a large number of small occupiers are sincere, they will grant leave to bring in this Bill and the later stages as well should be made very easy indeed. Briefly, the object of the Bill arises as a result of a legal opinion obtained recently with regard to the recipients of a money advance under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1925, under which local authorities are empowered to make advances to individuals and societies for the purpose of promoting the housing of the working classes of this
country. Under the Housing Act, 1923, Section 29, Subsection (2), power is given to local authorities to make advances for the purpose of increasing housing accommodation and, as is well known by hon. Members, under this particular Housing Act., individuals can obtain advances from their local authority up to an amount not exceeding 90 per cent. of the cost after the local authorities have made a proper valuation and are satisfied that the various terms are met.
Many thousands of houses have been built for owner occupiers under the terms of this Act. It has been the constant boast of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that private enterprise during the past year or two under the Housing Act of 1923 has been responsible for the building of a large number of houses. Recently a difficulty has arisen. In one of my own districts, a person who had been the recipient of a money advance from his local council was subsequently elected a member of the local council, Doubts were immediately expressed as to whether, under the Local Government Board Act of 1894, Section 46, he was or was not disqualified from taking his seat and voting in his capacity as councillor. Counsel's opinion was obtained and the opinion submitted was consistent with that which was offered by the Ministry of Health. The penalty for taking a seat and voting, should one come within the disqualification Section, is no less than £20 for each vote cast. Therefore it will be seen that unless this anomaly is removed that not only Section 92 of the Housing Act of 1925 will to a large extent be defeated, but a large number of people, who otherwise would have become owner occupiers, will refrain from doing so rather than be deprived of serving the community of which they happen to be members. Section 46 of the Local Government Board Act 1894 reads as follows:—
A person shall be disqualified from being elected or being a member or chairman of a council of the parish or of a district other than a borough or of a board of guardians if he (e) is concerned in any bargain or contract entered into with the council or board or participates in the profit of any such bargain or contract or of any work done under the authority of the council or the board.
Obviously, this particular Section was never intended to deal with the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1925, otherwise, I think
the right hon. Gentleman who passed those Acts would have made such arrangements as would have removed the disqualification. There are many anomalies existing at the moment. If a local authority is satisfied that an advance ought to be made to an individual there is no more immorality in making that advance to that individual than in making a similar advance to a building society, so that the individual in an indirect way can obtain the same advantage without encountering the possibility of disqualification under the Act of 1894. To-day, a member who receives an advance, which is inspired by the Minister of Health, is disqualified under a penalty of £20 per sitting from serving on the council of the district in which he happens to live. Whether the subsidy is wrong or right may be a subject of argument, but while it exists individuals who are capable of serving the localities in which they live ought not to be disqualified from doing so because they have received the benefits of the Housing Acts. The Bill which I propose to introduce has no object other than to remove that anomaly and allow the maximum value to be obtained from the Housing Acts, and I hope the House will give a unanimous expression of its willingness to grant leave to introduce the Bill.

Mr. GERALD HURST: The House would be well advised to refuse the hon. Member leave to introduce this Bill. The hon. Member says that he is striking a blow against an anomaly. In actual fact he is striking a blow against one of the first principles of English law and one of the first principles of which govern the conduct of public affairs in this country. It is a first principle of the law that no trustee shall be placed in a position where his duty and his interest are in conflict. A member of a local authority is a trustee for the ratepayers and it is his duty, as such, to make contracts with third persons on behalf of the ratepayers. His duty under the Housing Act is to see that there is security for any advances made, to see that repayment of the principal is properly secured and to see that the instalments of that principal are paid by the borrower at certain specific times. The hon. Member conceives a situation in which a member of a local authority is in that position and is at
the same time a borrower from the local authority. It is his interest as a borrower to obtain the money with the minimum of security and to obtain conditions which will enable him to repay the money on the best terms possible to himself. It is inconceivable that anybody who observed the first principles of equity, would place a man in a position where his interest and his duty so conflicted.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that at the present moment any member of a borough council can obtain an advance under the Housing Act now referred to, and that it is only the members of parish councils or urban district councils who are liable to disqualification?

Mr. HURST: If there are anomalies under the present system it is very desirable that they should be removed, but we do not want a levelling-down to the lowest level of corruption. We want a levelling-up to the highest standard

of purity. The duty of a member of a local authority is to be a watch-dog, and you cannot be a watch-dog and a marauder at the same time. It is impossible to serve the best interests of the ratepayers and at the same time to secure the best possible terms' for one's self as a borrower. It places a man in an impossible position. If there are instances in which that conflict between interest and duty is now permissible, the House, I am sure, would welcome a Bill from the hon. Member removing that anomaly; but to add to existing anomalies a new anomaly, and to add to existing temptations a new temptation, would be contrary to the best interests of the country.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that receipt of money advanced in pursuance of Section ninety-two of the Housing Act, 1925, shall not disqualify the recipient from being a member of the local authority making such advance.

The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 162.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harney, E. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. [Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock
Henderson, Right Hon. A. [Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hurd, Percy A
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, Major P. B.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh. Denbigh)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, H.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C H. (Sheffield, Attecilffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purcell, A. A.
Womersley. W. J.


Grundy,T. W.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Remnant, Sir James



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
Mr. T. Williams and Mr. Taylor.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Balniel, Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bowyer. Captain G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth. Drake)
Brass, Captain W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Penny, Frederick George


Briggs, J. Harold
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hanbury, C
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexharm)
Harland, A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buchan, John
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Raine, Sir Walter


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holt, Captain H. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins,J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)
Salmon, Major I.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen'sUniv., Belfast)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberdn & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. O.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Edge, Sir William
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Strauss, E. A.


England, Colonel A.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, Lewis
Templeton, W. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lumley L. R.
Waddington, R.


Fenby, T. D.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt, P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A-L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macintyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wiggins, William Martin


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacNeill-Weir. L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macqulsten, F. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lltchfield)


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grant, Sir J. A.
Morris, R. H.
Withers, John James


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, Col. Ht. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Gerald Hurst and Major Colfox.


Question put, and agreed to.

LEAD PAINT (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the prohibition contained in the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act, 1926, of the employment of women in panting buildings with lead paint.
The object of this little Bill is to remove what I think the House will regard as a defect in the Act dealing with lead paint poisoning which was passed last year. The Act contains a number of Regulations to be observed by painters of buildings, and Section 2 states:
It shall not be lawful to employ any woman or young person in painting any part of a building with lead paint.
That sweeping exclusion of women is qualified, however, by an exception in favour of apprentices under certain
approved arrangements and for special decorative work, and in respect of women who are already in the employ of painters. The object of this Bill is to remove the ban on women and to put them on exactly the same footing as men, that is to say, to allow them to work in the industry under the Regulations set out in that Act. I think the time has come in out' history when we ought to cease to draw any discrimination founded on the mere basis of sex. No doubt there are many occupations for which men are more fitted than women, just as there are many occupations for which women are more fitted than men, but, in my submission, there ought to be no statutory bar against either sex. Let their capacity and the appropriate economic laws be the true discriminator.
Women are particularly adapted for the work of painting buildings. It does not involve heavy manual labour, and it includes decorative work and the mixing of colours, in which pursuits women are, if anything, more skilful than men. Already a large number of women are employed in the industry, and the number is increasing, and in these circumstances I think the House will agree that this provision to exclude them ought to be withdrawn. If it could be shown that while the Regulations made the painting of buildings safe for men they did not suffice to protect women then, of course, women ought to be excluded, not on the ground of their sex, but on the ground of their greater susceptibility to lead poisoning; but no one has attempted to make out such a case.
A few days ago I attended a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms at which I and other Members interested heard statements on this subject from various medical experts, and according to what we were told women are by no means more susceptible than men; according to the statistics, they would appear to be less susceptible. We were told that after 1898, when all women were excluded from working in lead factories and in pottery work, the proportion of cases of lead poisoning amongst the workers rose instead of falling; and, on the other hand, when the men were called to the front in 1914 and their places had to be taken by women the number of cases of poisoning fell instead of rising. I am told there has been no scientific investigation into the point, but I think I am justified in saying that no case has been made out for asserting that there is greater susceptibility to lead poisoning on the part of women. Another argument which has, been put forward is that the consequences might be more harmful from the racial point of view in the case of women, but the experts are quite satisfied that the percentage of defective maternity cases is no greater among women workers in the lead industry than amongst women workers in any other industry, and as a matter of fact the poison is quite as deleterious to the paternal as to the maternal function.
4.0 p.m.
I have one other observation to make. The only ground whatsoever upon which this exclusion can be based appears to me to be this. It may be said that the Act ordering the promulgation of Regulations is in itself experimental. The Home Secretary told us that if it did not work there must be prohibition both of men and women in the paint industry, and, of course, it may then be said that, during the experimental stage, do not let us try it upon women, but let us, instead, experiment on men, according to the axiom Fiat experimentum in corpore vili. But the comfort which the women might derive from seeing this experiment practised on the vile body of man might be more than counterbalanced by the reflection that they might find themselves out of employment. I certainly think the time has come when we ought to cease to make these rigid distinctions purely on the basis of sex. Distinctions will exist, arising out of the fitness of men or women for any occupation. Let public opinion, let their own tastes, let their own capacity, let the laws of economy separate them into this occupation or that occupation; but do not put upon the Statute Book a law to say to women, "Thou shalt not work in this or that occupation" when, in all other respects but sex, they are singularly fitted for them. Therefore, I hope the House will be good enough to give me leave to bring in this Bill.

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope the House will do nothing of the kind. The arguments to which we have just listened are exactly the same kind of arguments as were used in the eighties by the Freedom of Labour Defence League against protection for those women suffering from wrist-drop, phossy-jaw and a number of other evils which, thank goodness, we have been able nearly to exterminate by means of protective legislation. What is wrong about this question is that this House has not ratified the draft Convention. Regulations are not satisfactory to the men working in the paint industry. Regulations are not regarded as a sufficient or adequate defence for men, but even if men prefer to go on being poisoned, that is absolutely no argument why women should
go on being poisoned until we have discovered some other way of dealing with this subject. With regard to the Convention, there are 13 countries, including France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Sweden which have, in fact, ratified the Convention for the abolition of white lead in connection with paint, and the only effect of the action of this House last year is to slow down the pace of the application of other forms of ingredients which could be regarded as entirely satisfactory for the painting of houses or any other form of painting.
Let me tell the House of the manner in which this was brought vividly to my attention in connection with members of my own union. Women employed in painting babies' perambulators with white lead paint were taken violently ill and died. How long does the House think that any form of ingredient which contains within it a mortal danger to susceptible persons is to be used for such things as perambulators? It is surely commonsense to say that an ingredient which has proved to be so dangerous to people who have handled it, should be prohibited, just as we have prohibited phosphorus in matches, and a number of other dangerous things which are not absolutely necessary for carrying on the trade or industry concerned. This is one of those questions about which there is great feeling in the country, particularly amongst the working classes themselves, and I want to say definitely and emphatically, on behalf of the working women, that we have not asked for protective legislation merely for the sake of getting it.
We have never raised this question of special Regulations for women unless we have had direct experience of the necessity for such Regulations, and it seems a very amazing thing that all the objections to protective legislation should come from women who are not themselves working women. The main argument is that it is going to restrict the field of women's employment. I do not think that is a sound argument at all. Since we have had our factory Regulations, since we have improved the conditions of women's work by protective legislation, there are more, and not fewer, women working in connection with these trades, and with regard to experts' opinion, I
can quote just as many experts showing that the situation is as bad, or worse, in connection with this business in relation to women. The hon. and learned Member quoted figures for 1908. I can give much more recent figures. Dr. Alice Hamilton, whose capacity for investigation no one questions, says:
During the War the English found that T.N.T. poisoning was worse among women munition workers than among men; the Germans found that dinitrobenzene poisoning was decidedly worse among women; and the Amercans found that women in the smokeless-powder works suffered more from ether poisoning than did men.
In all these matters we have to exercise commonsense. Those who represent the working-women are satisfied, by investigation and expert evidence, as well as by practical day-by-day experience of the workshops, that lead poisoning can be abolished, and ought to be abolished, and if we have to wait some time longer for men to get rid of this evil, then we will not wait so long before women get rid
of it.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the prohibition contained in the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act, 1926, of the employment of women in painting buildings with lead paint,
put, and negatived.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Amendments to—

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." [Judicial Committee Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Barry, Basingstoke, Hartlepool Port Sanitary District, Oxford, Romford Joint Hospital District, and Sutton (Surrey). [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 10) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed];

Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Bury Estate Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Mersey Tunnel (Birkenhead Entrance, etc.) Bill [Lords],

Coventry Corporation (Boundary Extension) Bill [Lords],

Scarborough Gas Company (Consolidation) Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Derby Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1927.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £95,494, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note: £47,600 has been voted on account.]

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I think I shall be expressing the general sentiment of the Committee if I offer our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on his proposed trip. Whatever criticism there may be levelled at what are called "world tours," I think it will be generally recognised that the more acquainted the Secretary of State becomes with those with whom he is so directly connected, the better for all concerned, and I offer in advance my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, and I wish him a speedy and safe return. I might remind him that the advantages of his tour may be minimised by the disadvantages of his return. I well remember taking a similar trip, and congratulating myself on all the advantages and experiences I had gained, and finding myself, as the result of the trip, out of office when I came back. I hope that at least will be the fate of the right hon. Gentleman. If he enjoys the trip as well as I did, then he is in for a good time; if it he as advantageous to the Empire as I believe mine was, he will have equal satisfaction; and if the net result is an advantage to this country by substituting another Government, then, I think, we shall all be able to say that everybody is happy, and it will be altogether a very congenial and happy result.
The discussion on this Vote presents an opportunity to consider the extraordinary situation which exists in this
Parliament as compared with our Dominions. Only a few months ago the whole Press of this country was occupied in reporting and emphasising the advantages that were likely to accrue from the Imperial Conference. I have never hesitated to say that I not only believed in the Imperial Conference, that I not only believed that it would be good, but that an opportunity should be given to this House to discuss the advantages of holding that Conference and the possibility of the extension of its functions. Certainly, the first thing that this House ought to insist upon is to be given an opportunity of discussing the important questions raised at the Conference. When I read the close questioning, the examination and even the suspicions aroused in Canada, Australia, and South Africa with regard to the actions of their representatives, when I see the full and frank discussion that has taken place in the Chambers of those countries and all the good of it, showing the advantage of the Imperial Conference, and when I remember that this is the Mother of Parliaments, the centre of the Empire, the place where the Conference was held, I remember that as far as this House is concerned we know no more about the Imperial Conference and its decisions, how far it has been bound or how its ramifications extend, than does the ordinary man in the street. That is the wrong and a bad policy, and it must in the end defeat the very object of the Imperial Conference.
The Prime Minister of South Africa returned to South Africa and in response to criticism and inquiry he said that he was satisfied. Further, he said, quite frankly, and no one is more pleased about it than I am, that he has returned more convinced than ever, as the result of the Imperial Conference, as to the value and unity of the Empire. I am paraphrasing his statement. We were all delighted with that statement. I was very largely responsible for General Hertzog coming here. On behalf of the Labour Government I extended the invitation to him. There was grave suspicion when he left South Africa, there was doubt as to what would be the result, but the end, so far as he was concerned, was one which has been a pleasure to all of us. Whatever may have satisfied him, whatever may have justified him in his statement, whatever may have given
cause for gratification in the final result, it might have been the subject of review and debate in this House. The same broad general principle applies to the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia. I hope that whenever an Imperial Conference is held and whenever important subjects such as were discussed on the last occasion are discussed, with happy results—I know of no one who is dissatisfied with the Conference—we, as a House of Commons, ought to have an opportunity not only of free and full discussion. It ought not to be left to the Opposition to raise the question, but the Government ought to have availed themselves of Parliamentary opportunity to see that the matter is discussed fully by all concerned. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
Just as we are entitled to feel satisfied with the results of the Imperial Conference, so far as we know them, I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on summoning the equally important conference of the Governors. That was an innovation; it was a bold step. There were probably many who were apprehensive of its results, but just as the Imperial Conference gave an opportunity for the exchange of views by the meeting together of people in a representative capacity, so, equally, it is a good thing for the Governors of the Colonies to meet to exchange their views and the results of their experience. But in saying that, and in welcoming that step, we on this side of the House feel that a very great and grave mistake was made in the discussion at that Conference and that the representations went outside what is called purely administrative questions. I hope that nothing I say this afternoon will be construed as a reflection upon the Governors or upon any individuals. No one knows better than I how difficult is their task and how hard it is to judge from this distance how good is the work they are doing and how much easier it is to criticise from a distance than to judge of the actual situation on the spot.
Whatever else may be said of the functions of a Governor, I lay it down that, as far as this House is concerned, their work and their function should be limited exclusively to the question of administration. I do so for this reason, that in 1923 when the Duke of Devonshire occupied
the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies, after considerable difficulty, with great fairness and foresight, there was issued in his name what was called a White Paper. That White Paper not only set down in black and white the policy of the Government but clearly set forth what we thought we could accept with responsibility in the nature of a trusteeship for the nation. I am summarising the phrase, but I do not think there will be any challenge of that definition. There was considerable controversy with regard to that White Paper. There were criticisms, and strong representations were made when a change of Government took place. Tremendous pressure was brought to bear upon our Government. Representations of all sorts were made to me to alter the situation. Having looked at the papers, having studied the situation as far as one could, I not only came to the conclusion that the views of the Duke of Devonshire, which were then expressing the views of the Government as set out in the White Paper, were sound, but that the policy was an unanswerable one, and on behalf of the Labour Government I made that statement with, I am sure, the acquiescence of the Opposition of that day. A very wise and necessary step was taken.
Whatever may be said about our domestic policy, whatever differences there may be with regard to political issues which arise from time to time, nothing but harm can accrue if it becomes known in our colonial administration that the policy which governs those huge territories and those millions of human lives, merely by political change from one party to another can not only be changed but the whole policy be thrown into the melting pot. I have no hesitation in saying that not only would such a position as that be bad but, in the end, it would be ruinous, because you can have no Governor, no administration acting with the confidence which is so essential for a difficult situation, and it would lead to inevitable chaos and disaster. Therefore, when we as a Government, having carefully reviewed the situation, having ascertained all the best opinion we could, and having reviewed the situation in the light of the circumstances I have enumerated, came to the conclusion that we would stand by the White Paper and all that the White Paper meant, we were not only saying that we
agreed to the policy but we were letting it be known to the world and all concerned that there was a possibility, at least, of a continuity of the policy which was so essential to all concerned.
Now, a new situation has developed; a situation that calls for serious consideration and as far as my colleagues on this side of the House are concerned, one which is very disturbing. We take the view that what we set out to achieve, and that for which the Government of the day were themselves responsible, is not only not likely to be achieved but has been deliberately upset by the changed policy which has been introduced. Let me remind the Committee exactly what the White Paper says:
This paramount duty of trusteeship will continue as in the past to be carried out under the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the agents of the Imperial Government, and by them alone.
I emphasise the words "by them alone." Further on, the White Paper said:
They are unable to delegate or share this trust with anyone else.
I ask the Committee to observe the significance of those words. That is a declaration not only as an instruction to those responsible for administration overseas but it is a sort of charter to the native population. In short, we say, "Here is a trust. We ourselves are the trustees, and we refuse absolutely to share this trust with anyone else."

Mr. HURD: "We."—being what?

Mr. THOMAS: "We" being the Government alone. The Colonial Secretary accepts my definition. I will read the words again:
This paramount duty of trusteeship will continue as in the past to be carried out under the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the agents of the Imperial Government, and by them alone.
That "alone" means—at least it is my interpretation of it—that the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this country is alone responsible. That trust is neither delegated to nor shared by anybody else. That is the policy laid down, and. if that be true, and if that be accepted, I feel bound to turn to the new White Paper, which is a summary of the conclusions, Command Paper No. 2904, "Future policy in regard to East Africa, July, 1927." I do not suppose there are many Members of this House who have yet seen this White Paper, but those who
have seen it, will, I am quite sure, appreciate the point I am about to make. It is the summarised result of the Conference I have already described. It is the Conference that I welcomed on the ground of considering the administrative position alone, and not general Imperial policy, which alone must be determined by the Government. I have already said what the trusteeship meant. I now turn to Page 5 of the White Paper, and I find these words:
The growth of European and other settlements in the East African Dependencies raises the problem of the part which these communities must play in the political as well as in the economic life of the several territories. Their claim to share progressively in the responsibilities of government cannot be ignored.
There never were words so innocent. Of course, I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman and his friends getting up and saying, "Surely there is nothing to quarrel with in these words? Surely, there must come a time when these people and all their responsibilities must be considered?" Certainly, I do not hesitate to say that, if ever the question arises as to what part in government the native or the Indian can play, there will be no more enthusiastic supporters than my friends on these benches. But that is not what the people who are responsible for the agitation mean. No one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman, because when I turn for some definition of what all this means and is intended to mean by those responsible for the agitation, I find in the "East African Standard" of 1st January that the situation is dealt with in this way:
Only by grappling the mandated territories to the other British territories by political and economic co-ordination and by the provision of adequate transport links between north and south will there be any proper safeguard against the dangers that Tanganyika, despite the declarations of the present Privy Council"—
that is the existing Privy Council—
may once more be cut out from the group of territories, which, by all natural considerations, will eventually form a great East African Dominion or Federation of States. In the formation of that political and economic entity of the future, white settlement in Kenya must play a major part. We have in this country the only developed centre of Western civilisation in the territories, and, if the benefits of European civilisation are to be extended to East Africa as a whole, the centre of the group, the main control of policy, and all the
external influences upon European and native policy must radiate from Kenya, where the principles of development of the subject races through contact with Western ideals have long been established and tested.
I ask the House to observe the significance of those words, and the words that follow. Here you have, in 1923, a declaration of policy, clearly and specifically laid down, and after I may say one of the most unpleasant incidents so far as correspondence is concerned that was within the experience of any Government. I do not want to refer to it except to say that I know there is no Secretary who has read these papers who would like to see that kind of controversy repeated again. But, notwithstanding all that took place, notwithstanding the strong attitude of the Government, the words I have originally given, the Government, and they alone, would be responsible for the policy set out by this Government in 1923 and endorsed by our Government when they took office. Now you find the change that I have already enumerated, and this change is dealt with in another paragraph which is equally significant. In the "East African Standard," of 20th February, the Hon. J. E. Coney, speaking to a meeting of settlers, defended the proposed expenditure of £80,000 from public revenue for the building of Government House. He said:
Should the Federation of the East African Colonies come to pass, Kenya should be the headquarters, and they, in their programme, must look ahead and make provision therefor. You will never solve the labour problem until you have control of the country. When you have that, you will immediately solve the problem. The policy of the Government should be that every native of the colony must work.
Asking the meeting to define to him how that policy could be enforced, the speaker said all that the Government could say was this:
'You must work—either in the reserves or on the farms, but work you must.' If that policy were to be applied, they would have the politicians at home determined to 'do us in.' There was no solution except to get control of the colony in our own hands.
It may be said that, as far as the Government are concerned, they are not only not responsible for, but they will repudiate these sentiments. I do not know whether that will be stated,
but the difficulty we are in—and the criticism we make and the apprehension we feel—is that when these statements are made and we find the so-called policy of 1923 now being investigated, and a change contemplated, we can only conclude that it is this kind of speech and this agitation which are responsible for the changes that are made. Therefore, what I put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Is it wise to have changes, having regard to that clear declaration that I have mentioned, and the endorsement of that policy by the Opposition which has given that continuity that everyone appears to be agreed upon is desired? What are the new peculiar circumstances why we should have a change of this sort? That, I think, is the question that needs to be answered for two reasons, not only because of the effect on the native himself, but because of the possible agitation that must arise in connection with the Indian both in Kenya and in other places. No one welcomes more than the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as well as ourselves the settlement of the Indian trouble in Kenya. Nobody welcomes more than the Members on these benches the possible happy solution of the Indian difficulty in South Africa. Here, again, continuity of policy is not only justified but I see satisfaction expressed at the happy turn of events in South Africa. Incidentally, it seems to be forgotten that it was our Government which made a suggestion for a round-table conference in South Africa. We are delighted to know it succeeded. What we are afraid of, both in regard to natives and Indians in Kenya, is that the reopening of this problem, so happily solved, may stir up enmity and all that has been accomplished may be lost.
I think the right hon. Gentleman should make the position perfectly clear to the Committee. He should tell us what is the composition of the new Commission. I do not know whether he is in the position to announce it. We ought to know what the terms of reference will be, and he should state clearly and specifically that, although recommendations may be made that need not involve legislation before any departure of any sort or kind is made from the 1923 White Paper this House will have the opportunity of discussing the whole situation, so that at least a considered and full judgment can be brought to
bear and no change will be made until that takes place. I am sure the Committee will recognise we are not raising this question in any party spirit. We have given evidence of our desire to keep this question out of mere party politics, but we are entitled, having regard to the appointment of this Commission and the changes I have already indicated, to make it clear and definite that, as far as we are concerned, we will not be parties to, or accept, or be responsible in any way for, any departure unless Parliament itself has a free and full opportunity of discussing the whole situation.

Sir SYDNEY HENN: I will leave to the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary the appropriate reply to the points put by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), but I think it is due to the Committee that I should tell them that during the early months of this year, when I visited in turn each of these African territories, I did not find any indication on the part of the white settlers in Kenya or elsewhere that in asking for an unofficial majority in the Legislative Council either in Kenya or in other territories they were claiming thereby to acquire complete control over native policy and native interests. On the contrary, I say quite specifically that in discussing this very question with some of the principal protagonists in the East African drama—names that are perfectly well known to this Committee—it was admitted to me that native interests must, for many years, remain the special care of the British Government and be excluded from party play in the political life of these new countries.
Having made that general statement, I should like, for a moment, to come down to a few specific matters that are referred to in the White Paper that has been recently published. No one is better placed than I am to appreciate the importance, or, indeed, the true worth, of this White Paper, because I am so familiar with most of the details that are referred to therein. Therefore, I hope the Committee will believe that in accepting the Paper as it stands, in a general way, I am acting up to the belief that has been created in my mind by very careful study of at least five years
of all these East African problems. The White Paper concludes by making a number of specific recommendations. I wish to extract from those recommendations three special points to bring before the Committee, because I think they are very well worth the consideration of hon. Members. The first point is the question of the administration of the Customs throughout East Africa. That is an old subject in East Africa and, for the benefit of those hon. Members who are not familiar with it, I may explain that as between Kenya and Uganda there has been in existence for many years a single Customs administration, with a division of the income thereby derived between the two Territories, upon the basis of an agreement arrived at some years ago. As explained in the White Paper, in the Territory of Tanganyika, which has now come into the most intimate contact both with Kenya on the coast side, and with Uganda on the interior side, there is at present existing an arrangement whereby, while the Customs tariffs are identical with some small exceptions, the administrations are completely separate.
Take the first case. While I was in Uganda, many complaints were made to me as to the ineffective operation of the agreement between Kenya and Uganda, and the fact was that, while the Customs were collected at the coast, an account was taken at the boundary between Kenya and Uganda—that is to say, at the lake ports—of the goods that passed into the territory of Uganda, and eventually a balance was struck of the goods that were supposed to find their way into Uganda. What has happened for the last two or three years? The spread in the use of motor-cars has brought about the creation, not only of main roads but of innumerable minor roads, with the result that goods are, in many cases, finding their way into Uganda over the boundary, and not through the lake ports where expensive machinery is maintained to keep an account of those goods. The goods go over the innumerable roads that lead from one country to the other, with the very natural result that the people of Uganda are claiming that they do not get their fair share of the Customs revenue. That is the position as between Kenya and Uganda.
Turn for a moment to the position as between Kenya and Tanganyika. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the geography of East Africa know that the main port of Kenya, Mombasa, is really very close to the boundary of Tanganyika and within the last year or two, certainly within the last few months, roads that existed on paper have in fact become practical roads between Mombasa and the very well-developed area of Tanga at the north end of the Tanganyika coast. The result is that the trade of Tanga to-day is being very largely served by roads from Mombasa. In addition to that, there is a railway line from Tanga to the Kilimanjaro area, and the bulk of the coffee and other produce grown in that area goes down, not to Tanga, with which it is in direct communication by railway, but over the branch line, known as the Voi-Taveta line, to the port of Mombasa, because the distance is either shorter or just about as short, and the advantages of the larger port attract the traffic that way. Let the Committee consider all the complications that exist when you have two separate Customs administrations in two territories that are so closely related. Be it said that the Tanga province has no direct communication at present with Dar-es-Salem.
The Committee will appreciate how very much out of date the system is that maintains two separate Customs administrations which operate over such a boundary when I assure them that I have tried very hard but in vain to see the boundary for myself, and in the end took a photograph of the spot in order to make quite sure that I had some record of what was supposed to be the colonial boundary between these countries. I feel cure the Committee will agree with me when I say that that antiquated arrangement should be put an end to, and that a more modern system should be applied. Not only should there be one single Customs administration, but there should be no machinery of any sort connected with the Customs in the interior of this block of territory consisting of three separate Colonies and Protectorates. Tariff administrations should exist only at those ports—either marine ports, lake ports, or land ports—where the goods cross the international boundary
and come into the country. It may be said, and it is believed by many people in those countries, that it would be impossible to arrive at a fair distribution of the revenue derived from the tariffs. It seems to me, however, that it would be a very simple matter to arrive at an agreement whereby the collection should be done by a single administration, and the proceeds divided on the basis of an agreement which could be revised at a period of, say, from three to five years, just as might be found suitable. The agreement should be based, not upon territorial considerations, but on considerations of population or of the existing condition of affairs in those countries.
The next point to which I should like to refer is a comparatively minor one, but is one which, in my opinion, is of very great importance. Up to date, in the protectorate and colony of Kenya, there is a single telegraph service, that of the State. For a long time past, efforts have been made to introduce into that country the service of the Eastern Telegraph Company. I merely mention the name of a particular company—it does not matter what company it may be—because that is the only submarine cable telegraph company available for that place. Yet, up to date, owing to administrative objections, not on the part of the Government of Kenya so much as on the part of the departmental chiefs, who are defending their revenue, Kenya has been and and is still deprived of what every civilised country ought to have, that is, instant cable communication with every part of the world during the 24 hours of the day and night. The main objection that I have heard put forward is a potential loss of £1,500 in the service that would pass to the other company instead of to the Sate line, but what would that mean, in comparison with the gain to its traders, especially to those interested in the cotton business in which the markets of the world are open just at the very time that the Kenya telegraphs are shut, if the cable service was maintained as it is in every civilised country, so far as my experience goes? What would be the gain to the community, and what could possibly be the loss to the Kenya Government? More particularly if it is a fact, as I have
quite recently seen it stated in the papers, that last year the postal and telegraph service of that country left a profit of £50,000.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of the East African Guaranteed Loan. I was unfortunate in not being here when the Act was passed by this House, but there are two points in connection with the Loan which I should like to raise. First, I think it is a great pity that at this stage in the development of East African railways, and indeed of African railways in general, that the recommendations of the Ronaldshay Report, which are well known to have been the recommendations of the late Sir William Acworth, than whom there never existed a greater authority on railway finance, have not been given a fair trial; namely, that not only should the railway budget be separated from the budget of the colony or colonies, as the case may be, but that private enterprise should be associated with the construction and administration of those railroads on the lines suggested by Sir William Acworth.
5.0 p.m.
The Government should figure for its loans and advances as shareholders or holders of stock, or even debenture if necessary, and they should be represented on the Boards of Management of the Corporation and they should control it, just as they do in the case of the Anglo-Persian Company, but the acts of administration should be left in the hands of experts and technical men who understand the construction and management of railways. This would have several advantages. I am not here to argue in favour of private enterprise, because, after all, no one realises better than I do that it would be necessary in such a case to restrict and limit what private enterprise, in the form of subscribed capital, should draw from the enterprise, but I think it would have a very good effect upon the general Budgets of all those Colonies that the question of railway finance should be completely taken out of the general budget, because I think in that case each of the Colonies would be able to raise finance for those other social expenditures which they have been, in my opinion, neglecting to a certain extent in order to find the money through such
credit as they possess for building railways and ports. Take the case of Kenya in particular. I quote it because that it is a Colony which in many respects is by far the most advanced, yet the capital of Kenya to-day has not got suitable public buildings of any description, and the whole country is short of those necessary public buildings, especially of the nature of schools, and other structures of that description which any country that wishes to progress must provide for the general advancement of all its citizens, whoever they may be.
The other point in connection with the East African Guaranteed Loan to which I would like to call attention is this. It is my considered opinion that the most important railway to be constructed to-day in the whole of Africa is the railway which will connect the territory of Kenya or Tanganyika with the territories lying to the south. I visited, in addition to those larger territories of which I have been speaking, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and nothing affected me more than to see the want of resources for developing Northern Rhodesia, which must be in time to come one of the finest countries in the whole of Africa. It is perfectly hopeless to expect that under the conditions of the East African Guaranteed Loan, namely, that the Government of Northern Rhodesia shall guarantee the payment to the Treasury of the interest and the necessary Sinking Fund.
The situation is very much the same as it was 30 years ago when in this House, after several Debates, this country determined to find the money to construct the Uganda Railway. In those days, I was reading quite recently, one of the so-called authorities, when discussing the possibilities of the future Uganda Railway, put forward the view that, so far as he could see, the railway through that territory, which he had studied carefully, would never produce more than £80,000 worth of produce to carry. Last year that railway carried £8,000,000 worth. I say to those who put forward the view that it took 25 years to make the Uganda Railway a paying proposition and that even yet it has not been settled in what form the cost of that railway is to be returned to those who found the money, that it will not take 25 years nowadays to make a railway of that description a paying proposition.
The Uganda Railway was built from a coastline which was sparsely inhabited by white people, who did comparatively little trade of an international character, and it led out at that time into an unknown country. The railway that I refer to, the railway that should connect the central railway in Tanganyika, whatever its route may be is a matter of indifference to me, with the main line linking up the territories of Rhodesia with the Katanga province of the Congo may cost £10,000,000 to construct; that I could not say, but I do say that within five years it would pay its way. With those few points I commend to the Committee this White Paper. I have studied it very carefully in the light of the progressive steps that have been taken during the last four or five years to advance the interest of Central and East Africa. I could criticise it in detail but I am in agreement with the main lines upon which it is laid out. In regard to the matters which were touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who I am afraid has not read it very carefully, I think there is nothing contrary to the views which were contained in the previous White Paper.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The hon. Member who has just sat down is perhaps better equipped than anybody in this House to deal with the matters to which he has directed attention, cable communications and railway finance, all of them matters which call for immediate attention in the territories which we have under consideration. I wish to offer a few remarks with regard to the more general question of policy which is included in the White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I think, stressed a qualification that has been made in the White Paper of 1923. I admit that I had hoped, when the White Paper was issued in 1923, that the question would not have been reopened so soon, but we have to face events, and events have moved quickly. We all realised, when that White Paper was issued, that the time had to come, sooner or later, when the policy therein laid down would have to be looked at again. Some of us thought that that would not happen for 10 or 15 or 20 years. As a matter of fact, it has been brought
up again within four years. We cannot control events such as the opening up of new countries, the inflow of capital, and the increase of colonisation. Those are things which largely move independently of our immediate control. What the Government laid down in the White Paper of 1923 was that this House, and the Government in Great Britain, should be responsible for the administration of native affairs in the countries with which we are concerned at the present time, and that we should act as trustees for the natives. I think it is appropriate that we should consider how much, and to what extent, the policy laid down is altered by the present White Paper. I am very glad that the White Paper which we are now considering contains not only a reference to but a reprint of a very important part of the White Paper of 1923. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby referred to it, but I would like to refer particularly to a passage on page 3 which is as follows:
Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated, and it will be necessary to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation, before proposals for so fundamental a change in the constitution of the colony can be entertained. Meanwhile, the administration of the colony will follow the British traditions and principles which have been successful in other colonies, and progress towards self-government must be left to take the lines which the passage of time and the growth of experience may indicate as being best for the country.
That is very important, and in my opinion it should be kept before the eyes of the whole country. The whole country is responsible for the policy which we are laying down in East Africa, and it is reiterated again and again in this White Paper that we are to remain as the trustees for the people of the countries with which we are dealing. As long as that prime issue of policy is kept before us, I do not think we can go very far wring. Where this present White Paper differs from the older one is in this respect, that it envisages the association with us of people of our race who are living in East Africa. That is a very different matter from handing over entirely to the settlers and the colonists of any particular Colony the complete control of native affairs. That we must keep very clearly, before us, and, at the same time, we must remember that history has shown
us over and over again that when the people of our own race settle in different parts of the world they are determined, as far as they can, to control their own destinies. We have seen that over and over again, and we shall see it as long as our people go and colonize.
How much better it is that those people, who are determined as far as possible to control their own destinies, should have the responsibility put upon them of being associated with us in the great work of trusteeship, rather than that they should be for all time, or for a time to which we can put no limit, kept outside, in the country where they are living and where all their hopes for the future lie, any possibility of controlling the most important thing in their country. How much better that they should be associated in the great policy which this House is determined to keep to, that of trusteeship with regard to the natives. I regret to some extent that events have led to this question being reopened so soon, but, since it has been reopened, I must say that I, and I think a great many others, were very apprehensive that some hasty step might have been taken which would have made things very difficult.
I am very glad to see that hasty steps have been avoided, and I think the Secretary of State has taken a wise course in deciding to appoint a Commission to consider these questions on the spot. The task of the men who will compose that Commission calls for the very highest qualities, and the work that lies before them is one of supreme difficulty, but, at the same time, it is one of supreme importance to the future of our Empire in Africa, and I sincerely trust the Secretary of State will be able to find people with well-balanced minds, and wise and statesmanlike views, who will be able to consider the questions they will have placed before them, not with a view to the immediate future, free from any pressure that may be brought to hear upon them in these districts, but with a view to the long distant future and the ages in front of us by which our occupation of Africa will be tested by history in time to come.
We are working in Africa on a different line now from what we have ever worked there before. The country is expanding with a rapidity with which it has never
expanded before. New events and new problems keep crowding on us every day and it is most marked that the successful conference of Governors which has just been held, and which I hope will be repeated in future years, when there has been so much interchange of ideas and opinions and where the groundwork has been laid for so much combination and co-ordination of effort which in the past has so often been lost—there one of the most striking things that stand out is the Report of the Committee of Colonial Scientific Research. It is fascinating to read the summary of what that Committee dealt with as showing the different lines on which we are tackling the economic and social problems before us in that country from the way in which those matters were tackled so recently as 20 years ago. We are approaching the Whole future on a different line, and not only an an economic and social line, but it is realised in this White Paper that we have to approach the matter on a different political line from what we have done before. I should like to call attention to the terms of reference, and particularly to No. 4, which is:
To suggest how the dual policy recommended by the Conference of East African Governors, that is, the complementary development of native and non-native communities, can best be progressively applied in the political as well as the economic sphere.
That, to my mind, is a very important term of reference. We have to see that the development of the dual policy cannot be confined to any one section of the whole Colony. It must be applied to the social, economic and political as evenly as may be. It is very unfortunate that, owing to the operation of the Parliamentary programme, things were sprung upon us in the very rapid way they were at midnight last night, but it is of advantage that that we should have been able to say a few words with regard to this new White Paper at an early opportunity and before the Session can come to a close. I have always had the firmest belief in the future of these countries. I believe there is a wonderful future before East Africa, a future which is beyond anything that is imagined at present. When you see what has happened in the past 20 years, the expansion, the development, the possibilities that are opening all round us, I believe if we
were alive 50 years hence, we should be astounded at what we should see. Our task now is to guide those developments on the right line, and the right line can only be the one to which I have referred. If we are to improve and develop those territories with mutual honour and advantage to ourselves and to the people under our care, it must be by a persistent and unceasing devotion to the idea that the weaker peoples in our charge must be treated with the same absolute fairness and justice and equality that we demand for ourselves.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. When may we expect to hear from the Government Front Bench a statement in regard to their policy? I know this is a Supply day, but it is very unsatisfactory from the Opposition point of view if this discussion is to go on until towards the end without a statement from the Front Bench. In that event, we shall not have any opportunities of correcting any fallacious arguments or making any comment upon statements which appear to us to need comment. I submit that we have a right to expect a statement from the Government Bench at an early stage of the Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no particular point of Order. It rests entirely with the Government.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I hope the White Paper will supply a sufficient statement of the general lines of policy we have in view, and then I could deal with additional points which have been raised in reply, and in the very short time at our disposal save hon. Members the inconvenience of having two Members of the Government Front Bench occupying an unnecessarily large part of the time.

Mr. SNELL: It is extraordinarily difficult to follow the two hon. Members who have just spoken. Both of them have so close and intimate acquaintance with East Africa that anything they say commands the strictest respect from all of us. They will forgive me if, without their knowledge, I hesitate to accept their optimistic outlook in regard to this proposed change of policy. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn) said that during his recent visit
to East Africa he did not find the settlers in their minds had any intention or desire to dominate over other sections of the East African territory, and I can well believe that they have no such conscious intention. But, unfortunately, results do not always spring from direct intention, and there are questions such as social gravity, the natural ability of the people placed there, their financial strength and administrative qualities, which must have an almost dominating influence over other territories where those abilities are less at their disposal. I should like to ask the Committee to think of the sudden change in policy which this new White Paper announces, and I hope the Secretary of State will not regard our criticisms of this Paper as displaying hostility to the general intention. These Supply days are the only opportunities we possess of extracting, if we can, additional information from the Department concerned, and the criticism offered is in a great measure aimed at that end. Only three years have passed since the East African Commission, of which the Under-Secretary was the Chairman, reported dead against federation, and one wonders what the changes have been in the last three years which have necessitated this change. I should like to quote one paragraph from that Report:
We found little, if any, support in East Africa for the idea of immediate federation, and in some quarters we found definite hostility. We received a memorial against federation from the King and native Government of Buganda, and discussions which had taken place in parts of Kenya immediately prior to our arrival revealed that the suggestion was viewed with more than a little suspicion by all sections of European opinion in Kenya. All shades of opinion in Zanzibar are hostile to federation, and we also received representations against federation from various Indian associations throughout the three Northern territories. But, apart altogether from these expressions of opinion, we came definitely to the conclusion that any attempt at federation would be premature.
I submit that an opinion so expressed by people who had given very careful attention to the matter cannot have been entirely removed in the short space of three years, and it would be interesting and helpful to us if the right hon. Gentleman could state what are the reasons why this change in policy is deemed to be necessary. We cannot help feeling, in the absence of such a statement, and
in spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn, that this new policy appears to go back on what we call the Devonshire policy as outlined in that despatch. It appears to us to involve a change of policy. We on this side who have taken an interest in East African affairs have felt on the whole very secure under the general undertaking of the Devonshire despatch, and we cannot help feeling a sense of uneasiness and insecurity if that despatch is to be varied in the direction proposed. One of the terms of reference to the proposed Commission, No. 3, is:
To associate more closely in the responsibilities and trusteeship of government the immigrant communities domiciled in the country.
It is quite certain that people living in that country have as much right as other people there to take a part in the government of the country. We are not questioning that but we should like to feel that, if this change is made the supreme power will remain in the hands of the Secretary of State and that he will be able, as hitherto, to act on behalf of this House as the guardian and trustee for the native people. One would view with great alarm, in the present development of the population in East Africa, the transference of the native population entirely to the control of the white people living in those areas. In saying that I am not suggesting for a moment, and I do not wish to give even the suspicion of suggesting, that the people living there whom we call settlers are any worse than we are in this House or will do less than what they consider to be their very best. Nothing of that kind is in our minds, but still these people are placed in a very peculiar position. They are faced with very great temptations. There is always the difficulty of the impact of vigorous white races upon native races, and that impact cannot take place without serious discomforts happening to both sides. It seems to us, without the special information which the hon. Members who have spoken possess, that it is necessary that we should continue as long as we can under the security of the trusteeship of the Colonial Office and until such time as the natives in this area are able in a greater degree than they are at present to take care of themselves and to pull their weight in any legislative boat that may be launched. That, really, is our
whole criticism upon that matter. The Secretary of State should have final control.
As there are a good many Members who desire to speak in this Debate, I will refrain from going into the question of the economic development of East Africa and the old questions of taxation and transport which we have urged so often in these Debates. I would only say, in passing, that in our judgment the very greatest care should be taken not to detach the native from his home cultivation, and that if possible every aid should be given so that what he produces on his own land should be made available for the market. In reality, in our minds, the African problem is this, whether East Africa shall develop along the lines which have been so successful in West Africa, or whether it shall drift into a huge plantation system which would produce a new set of problems. I will not, however, further develop that point.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is his intention in regard to one particular matter. We on this side of the Committee are rather unhappy about the imprisonment of a native who was found in the possession of a newspaper. In the South African Union territories he could have retained possession of it without any disadvantage to himself. But the mere possession of this newspaper has resulted in his receiving a long and, we think, a dangerous sentence of imprisonment. I do not know the whole of the circumstances, but it would be a very great security to us if the right hon. Gentleman could look into that matter and see whether it is not possible to alleviate in some way or other the imprisonment which has been passed upon this native.
I only desire, in closing, to say that in our discussions in this House on African affairs we have always tried as much as possible—and I think, on the whole, we have succeeded—in keeping them apart from what we may call party warfare and controversy, and our argument this afternoon is merely that we are afraid that this new policy which is indicated in the White Paper may carry us further—may seem to pledge us on this side to a policy which we view at present with some suspicion. I hope, therefore, the right hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State will be able to assure us that in the future, as in the past, he will have supreme control, and that nothing will happen which will weaken that trusteeship on behalf of the natives which he has hitherto held on behalf of this House.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I do not want to follow at all in the field explored by the previous speakers in discussing the wider question of policy raised by the White Paper, but to raise one point only, and that is the development of the principle of compulsory service in the Colony of Kenya. The Committee will remember that for many years Kenya has enjoyed a voluntary system of military service just as has the Mother country. There have been many attempts to try to establish the principle of compulsion for Europeans only living in that Colony. The Secretary of State for the Colonies gave his consent in principle to the ultimate passing of a Bill which would carry with it the right of compulsion for military service of all Europeans living in Kenya. It is that principle of compulsion to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee, and to ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State. Bills of this kind have been discussed for a number of years now, and I gather that at the beginning of this year an amended Bill was introduced into the Legislature, and, as far as we can see, that Bill is likely at a very early date—if it is not already—to become law.
I wish to raise two objections to this Bill. The first is upon local grounds. As far as I can understand, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he gave his consent in principle to this Bill, did so on the understanding that the whole of the European population in Kenya was in favour of the Bill. It is manifestly clear that that is not the case. As far as I can ascertain, the Colonial Governor, Sir Edward Grigg, did, about a year ago, give a more or less definite undertaking that a Bill of this kind should not become law unless there was a general measure of consent on behalf of the Europeans themselves. This year the Europeans living in Kenya have organised for themselves an anti-conscription committee, and in the course of a few weeks they have been able to obtain no less than 1,500 signatures against the
passage of this compulsory Bill into law. I want to remind the members of the Committee that 1,500 out of 8,000 Europeans is a very considerable number. According to one calculation, a petition of 1,500 of the present European population is equivalent to something like a petition of 6,000,000 adults in this country against the passage of any particular Bill. I think the mere fact that so large a number of signatures has been obtained is very clear and tangible evidence that there is a wide disparity of opinion among the Europeans themselves with regard to the passage of this particular Bill. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary, therefore, whether in view of this large amount of European opposition to the passage of the Bill, he will not consider delaying, at all events, his final consent to this Bill, and give at least some opportunity for that very large minority opinion to make itself heard in a representative way before this matter is finally determined by the Government of this country?
I should like to mention the wider idea of the principle. We in this country have always been proud that we have never found it necessary, except on very rare occasions, to burden ourselves with the inception of conscription for military service. It has always been one of our proud boasts as a country that we stand out in the commonwealth of nations in regard to the freedom we have enjoyed in the matter of military service. Those of us who are thinking about wider questions would like to see the example of the Mother country followed by all other nations. I believe it would be the last thought of members of this Committee that we as a commonwealth of nations should ever have it laid against us as a charge that we were setting the example of conscription to other countries in the world. I would, therefore, like to raise this wide issue of principle. I do not think I can do better than quote the actual words drawn up by the anti-conscription Committee in Kenya itself. Those Europeans in Kenya are the most concerned in preserving, if they can, the principle of voluntaryism in that colony. The Anti-conscription Committee have said this with regard to the question of principle as it applies to the Colony of Kenya.
We believe that the great tradition of free service offered to the State is inter-
woven with the texture of our national character, and that to this we largely owe our greatness among the nations of the earth. This Colony earned distinction among the distinguished in the late War for the number of its men who flocked to the Colours as volunteers. We are fighting to maintain this ideal of free service to one's fellows; it dies under compulsion.
We feel that once the principle of compulsion creeps into this Colony we shall tread ground which henceforth will cease 'to be for ever England,' and that the ideals of free service, which men died in thousands to save, will have been conquered and abandoned to the enemy.
I cannot help thinking that when they use the word "enemy" here, they have definitely in mind the late enemy in the world War, and they mean, too, that it was at our instance that conscription was abandoned and given up by the late enemy in 1919.
In the times through which we are now passing there is a tendency to treat tradition and principle as of light account, but we regard each breach with those traditions and principles that made our Motherland great, as if it were the tolling of a knell to mark the passing of the soul of a great race—our own.
I have ventured to raise this matter, which is the only point I wanted to raise this afternoon, because I felt it was one of great importance. If we are to allow the principle of conscription to apply to Europeans, it will raise the great question of compulsion in regard to Indians in Kenya. If we are going to allow this Bill to pass in Kenya, there is no reason why other colonies should not be quick to seize on this example. I want to appeal to the Minister, not only on the grounds of the very powerful objection raised among the inhabitants themselves, but on the wider ground. I want to ask him at this late hour to reconsider the consent he has given in principle, and, at least, to delay the matter until he has had an opportunity of consulting with the representatives of the Anti-Conscription Committee before he finally gives consent to a Measure which will give no pleasure in any part of this Committee, but which will damage the great tradition of freedom which has been one of the proudest boasts of the Mother country to which we belong.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: After the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn), and the hon.
Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), one feels a certain amount of diffidence in referring to the White Paper. But I was one of the few members of the Committee who knew British East Africa before it had a railway, and for that reason I should like to endorse every word that has been said—though, possibly, it might seem rather too optimistic—by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, with regard to railway construction. There are vast tracts of British East Africa and the other Colonial dependencies which are simply awaiting railway communications to bring them from periods of occasional prosperity and occasional famine to one of an even level of prosperity.
I wish to bring one suggestion to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I feel sure that suggestions made by the members of the Committee invariably raise in his mind a doubt whether they will not involve the question of spending money, but in this case, I think, I can assure him in advance that this will not be so. In the first paragraph of the Terms of Reference of this Commission, it says that they shall direct their attention to scientific research. It is a very wide and a very general reference, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be good enough to direct their attention to one very small but important matter. I refer to the research which is taking place in regard to leprosy in Uganda. This does not involve a large sum of money owing to the advance of medical knowledge and medical research. This disease has been very effectively attacked, and if the Colonial Secretary could direct attention to the very useful work which is being done in this connection in Uganda to-day, it might be the means of fixing public attention upon it, and this would tend to expedite a piece of extremely useful and humane work which is now being carried out in Uganda.
I hope the Commission which has been set up will have its attention drawn to the co-ordination of East and West Africa in regard to all the forms of work and research in connection with the tsetse fly. At the present time we have no vaccine or innoculation to deal with this scourge. A great deal of useful work is being done in this connection, and if on this occasion
the right hon. Gentleman could focus the attention of the Commission to the work now being done in South Africa on the subject of the tsetse fly it might give a stimulus to this good work. On this queshangs a great deal of the prosperity of agriculture. If the Colonial Secretary will direct the attention of the Commission to the leprosy question in Uganda I feel sure that he will be earning the thanks not only of the community generally but also of some very hardworking scientists who are to-day conducting some most useful investigations on these lines in Uganda.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could say something upon the question of child labour in the Colonies, which is causing some of us a good deal of anxiety. If we are correctly informed, a Bill has been produced which provides for the indenturing of children under 14 years of age. While that is so, it does not appear that there is any limit downwards from 14 years. Here is an extract from some remarks made by the Attorney-General when he was referring to the draft Bill. He said:
I doubt whether it is right to legislate at all for such young children.
I believe the Attorney-General was then speaking of children younger than eight or nine years. I do not know whether those words are taken too much out of the context, but, if not, it would certainly appear that the statement meant that it is difficult to legislate at all for such young children. Further, I would like to ask, should these children be summarily whipped for disobeying any order of the officials, without an inquiry taking place, or anything in the nature of a trial, to ascertain what was the cause of the disobedience or whether there was any justification for the children being treated in that way? There does not seem to be what we should regard in this country as a right arrangement in regard to whipping, because there is no provision for medical inspection to ascertain whether a child is really fit to undergo the whipping. As for the position in which some of these children are placed, it certainly seems from the remarks made in the Debate on the Bill that there was something very nearly approaching
slavery on the part of these children. On this subject Mr. Eaton said:
I will only instance the case of the mica fields. That particular industry, as hon. Members may be aware, is almost entirely run by piccanins. On one of the mines in the mica fields quite 50 per cent. of the native labour is juvenile, and the mine-owner find it absolutely necessary to keep that staff of piccanins on his mines. He has to issue what is known as Mothers so that he may keep the mothers on the mine, and every day the women in the compound are issued this ration in order to keep their piccanins there.
It would almost appear that the bread and butter of the mother can only be obtained by keeping her children at work. Further, it seems that in Rhodesia——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The particular question which the hon. Member is raising cannot be discussed on this Vote, because it comes on the Dominions Vote.

Mr. AMERY: I feel that the chance which made this discussion possible this afternoon was a most fortunate one, because it has given us an opportunity of dealing with the White Paper relating to East Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), whose criticisms were, in every sense, desirable, suggested that this particular White Paper was the outcome of the Colonial Office conference, and he maintained that in his opinion it was not advisable for that conference to go beyond the sphere of administration. I ought perhaps just to make that point clear before dealing with the actual speech. The White Paper is in no sense the outcome of the Colonial Office conference, which devoted itself entirely to administration and other matters affecting the whole Colonial Empire. It is true that I did take advantage of the presence in this country of several Governors and senior officials from the East African Colonies to discuss with them very fully matters of administration and policy on which I have had correspondence and communications with them for some considerable time past.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman says he took advantage of the presence of these Governors to meet them; I know they were equally pleased to avail themselves of the opportunity of meeting the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. AMERY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby must not be under the impression that this is a matter which was taken up on the initiative of the Government out there rather than on the initiative of the Secretary of State. I have been for many years concerned with this problem in East Africa, and I have consulted the Governors as to the lines upon which that problem could best be dealt with. The Colonial Office conference is only one indication of the desire which exists in the Colonies to promote better co-operation in and co-ordination of the territories in East Africa. It is true that our discussion raised issues both of policy and administration, and that is the reason why I decided that there should be a Cabinet decision instead of simply settling matters with the Governors concerned.
In the first place, the primary clement in our deliberations was the administrative policy of considering the inefficiency and waste which inevitably occur where you have a number of Governments set up with no natural boundaries in a territory which is a unit of itself not only geographically but in all its essential characteristics. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) said he hoped that we should follow in East Africa the policy of West Africa rather than the policy of South Africa. I think that point was brought out most effectively by the Chairman of the East African Commission, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. East Africa is neither West Africa nor South Africa, and it has characteristics entirely of its own. It can never remain a purely black man's country, and it is never going to become a white man's country even in the sense that South Africa has become a white man's country. It is a country in which the native races will always form the dominant element of the population, and their interests will be paramount. But over considerable tracts of land the white man will stay for a number of years where he can settle and bring up his family, and thus acquire a real patriotism for his country, and in course of time become responsible for the conduct of affairs.
6.0 p.m.
From every point of view the case for maintaining the present arbitrary divisions—divisions
which sprang up in the scramble for territory in the 'eighties of last century—is a weak one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn) clearly demonstrated out, from the point of view of customs, telegraphs, railways, ports and so on, the country can only be efficiently developed if it is treated as one. The more it is developed, the more naturally the ports of one territory will tend to serve the interior of another. Nothing can be more inefficient than working in watertight compartments, with each Government looking only at its own revenues, looking only at bringing trade to its own harbours, and embarking on a course of railway competition with its neighbours. If we are to utilise the vast resources of East Africa, if we are to utilise the help of British capital, which this House pledged itself to give through the Loan Bill which I had the privilege of conducting through the House a few months ago, obviously we ought to use those resources in the most economical and effective manner.
Again, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Captain R. Henderson) has reminded us that perhaps the greatest problem of all, in East Africa, is the problem of research. We are coping, in conjunction with the League of Nations, with the dominating problem of the tsetse fly, and we mean, when the League of Nations' investigation is finished, to carry that on further with the co-operation of the Governments concerned. We are making progress in dealing with the other plague to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, namely, that of leprosy in Uganda. On medical questions, on agricultural questions, on veterinary questions, there is an immense field for the development of research; and research is obviously better carried on if it is co-ordinated than if it is carried on in small divisions. The problems of disease, as well as those of agricultural and veterinary research, are common to all these territories, and it is absurd that they should be carried on inefficiently in half-a-dozen territories when by co-operation they can be carried on in one centre or another for the good of all.
From all of those points of view, His Majesty's Government are convinced that the time has come when the problem of
some form of better co-operation, whether it be federation or whether it be some looser system of co-ordination, ought to be seriously studied and a decision come to upon it. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) asked, very fairly, how it was that, within three years of Parliament receiving a Report from my right hon. Friend who said that federation met with very little support, and had active opponents in more than one quarter, we should now be dealing with that problem. I would say that in those three years events have moved very rapidly and one of the very first things that caused them to move was that Report itself, signed by Members of all parties in this House, setting forth in so lucid and practical a manner the essential unity of East Africa. While that Report regarded federation as premature, it did in fact itself contribute a powerful impulse towards a movement which has grown increasingly in the minds both of the official world and, even more, of the unofficial world since that date.
Conferences unofficially assembled together, first in Tanganyika and then in Northern Rhodesia, realised, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) knows so well, that, when people meet round a table, they become more conscious of the greater unity to which they all belong, and less obsessed by the narrower local outlook which often makes them reject schemes or ideas from their own capitals. The whole development of motor traffic up and down East Africa has drawn things together in an amazing way during the last few years, and there is now an entirely different outlook. The East African Loan, again, has had its effect on East Africa as a unit for transportation purposes, and, short though the period has been, it has witnessed a profound transformation in the whole atmosphere as well as in the practical conditions of East African administration. I venture to suggest, therefore, that in sending out a Commission whose studies, naturally, must take some time, and will be submitted in the shape of a Report to the Government in the first instance—and, of course, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that the Report will be available for Parliamentary criticism before
we take final action upon it; obviously I readily accept that suggestion——

Mr. THOMAS: So much can be done entirely by administrative action in this connection, that we have had to safeguard the position by asking that any recommendations from that Commission, even of an administrative kind as distinguished from fresh legislation, should first be the subject of Parliamentary debate.

Mr. AMERY: Yes, I quite realise the point. It may, of course, be possible that some legislation may be required in this House, but it may also very well be possible for these matters to be dealt with entirely administratively or by Order in Council; but, in the latter case also, I quite agree that there ought to be discussion in this House before any final action is taken. I suggest, therefore, that there is nothing premature in sending out at this stage a Commission whose final conclusions cannot be put into action for, at any rate, a period of something like 18 months or two years. But if the Commission is sent out, it obviously cannot confine itself to the purely administrative aspects of union. Federation, or whatever form of closer union is adopted, will have its consequential effect upon the constitutional arrangements in the different Colonies and territories.
If the recommendation is that those territories should be unified, obviously some single legislative council at the centre will take the place of the existing councils. If there is federation, there must be some division of powers and functions between the central legislature and the provincial councils. If, on the other hand, there is only co-ordination between the existing councils, there must be some new central co-ordinating body. Whichever course is recommended as regards federation, it will bring certain consequential rearrangements of the legislative machine in its train. If these are to be considered, I think it is only right that any Commission which goes out to consider them should consider them, not only from the mere mechanical and formal aspect of the division of powers but also from the point of view of the whole future development of constitutional government in those territories, native and European.
Let me take the native aspect of the question first. None of the discussions
at our Colonial Office Conference recently were more interesting or, to me, more stimulating than those which showed how, in one part and another of Africa, East and West, we are building up the foundations of a true system of responsible Government among the natives. One of the great dangers with which we are faced everywhere in different forms in our Colonial Empire, is when our Western institutions, fully developed, without having to pass through all the long stages through which we ourselves have passed in the centuries, are suddenly placed before people who have never had any sense of responsibility for administration whatever—legislators who know nothing of the responsibilities of self-government, seeking the suffrages of electors who know still less. That danger is bound to come in East Africa one of these days, and the only way to meet it is to be forearmed, to begin gradually to build up a true sense of responsibility locally in the native population.
In West Africa, through what is known as indirect government, and in East Africa through similar methods, we are to-day creating the beginnings of native self-government in small areas, coupled with responsibility for their own finance—responsibility for raising it, responsibility for transmitting, in many cases, part of it to the central Exchequer, and responsibility also for spending either the whole or a part of it, and realising that money spent for one purpose is not afterwards available for another. You get a true building-up of responsibility, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) very well said, Clause 4 of the Instructions to the Commission will be certainly not the least important part of the work of the Commission, namely, to consider how progressively in the future this foundation of native responsibility for their own lives, in the political as well as in the economic sphere, is to be dealt with on a higher plane, and, at some higher point—whether in the provincial or whether in the central legislature—linked up more closely with the existing element of representation and responsibility for the government among immigrant races.
As regards the Indians, I should like to say in a word that nothing that is under consideration is to affect in any way the position or the rights of the
Indian community as laid down in the Duke of Devonshire's dispatch. One member, at any rate, of the Commission will be selected by the Secretary of State for India in order that that point may be kept in mind. That brings me to the position of the white settlers, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said very truly that in the long run that you can never prevent any community of our own people from claiming the right to have a say in the management of their own affairs, especially when they become settled and feel that they are a permanent element in the community, and that officials from home know less of their problems than they do themselves. The question is as to how that problem can best be dealt with. The White Paper of 1923 was in the main negative in its character. It said that responsible government was not in sight, and, of course, responsible self-government is not in question in this White Paper either. It also rejected the idea of linking, as it were, a responsible Government within a limited scope by white men over their own affairs, and reserving the whole control of everything which affects the native for the home government. That, I am afraid, is not an attractive form of diarchy in a country like East. Africa, where white and black live indissolubly bound together, where there is no problem, nor any aspect of self-government which affects the white man without touching at every moment upon his relationship with the black. While we have adopted and carried on the principle laid down in the White Paper of 1923, that White Paper certainly did not exclude progress towards self-government, and laid down clearly that progress in that direction would be left to take the line that the passage of time and local experience might indicate as best for the country.
All that is laid down in this White Paper, and all that constitutes any modification of the underlying principle of the White Paper of 1923, is that we there explicitly reject the idea of white and black diarchy and affirm that progress towards self-government on the part of the white community does mean, must mean, and ought to mean, an association with the Government in the sense of trusteeship to the weaker and more numerous part of the population. I entirely agree with the hon. Member opposite
that we cannot surrender our trusteeship to anyone else; and there is no question of doing so. It is a question that while we retain our trusteeship and control we associate them with us in that trusteeship, bring them into responsibility; and I believe that when you bring responsibility you bring also a wider outlook and a truer understanding. One of the great mistakes made in the early history of South Africa was that the Imperial Government regarded itself as the one and only champion of the native races and alienated and thrust on one side the white community, which was often mistaken perhaps, but was sometimes right. The result was to breed in the white settlers not only hostility towards the Government which denied them a share in the control of their own affairs but hostility towards the ideals with which that Government was associated. This fosters in the white community the idea that their only responsibility is a white responsibility, that the black man is not their affair because the British Government will look after him. That is a very shortsighted conception of responsibility. The day will come, unless indeed the growth of white settlement comes to a stop within the next generation, when with the growth of a large settled community, no Government in this House can ultimately resist the demand for self-government. When it does come you want the men to whom you transfer your trusteeship to have the spirit of trusteeship. You do not want to hand over people who have trusted you for generations to men who have never shared any sense of responsibility. If, on the other hand, you bring that community, a community of a very fine type of men inspired by British traditions, earlier into a share of responsibility; if you make them see something of the work of government and the responsibility of government from the inside, you will breed a race of men to whom in the fullness of time this House may be able to hand over its trusteeship without any fear that it will be dishonoured.
I feel that in this matter we all realise the case from the same point of view. What we want to see is the right result. The essence of the dual policy, which has commended itself not only to the Government and the great majority of public
opinion here but also to the great majority of the settled community in East Africa, is the idea that the interests of white and black in East Africa are not conflicting and hostile but, on the contrary, that the two races can and ought to be complementary to each other; the idea that the initiative of the white man, with all that he can contribute in economic devolopment, in scientific research, in the sphere of government and the development of political consciousness can be brought into play in such a way as to benefit and not injure the black man. What we want to do is to make sure that the white settlers are conscious of the destiny of East Africa as a great country which they are called upon to lead and inspire; that they should be equally conscious of their responsibility towards other communities and should desire to bring these communities, in fullness of time, into association with themselves in every matter affecting the development of the country.

Mr. THOMAS: I should like to ask a specific question on this point. Is the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech relating to the question of self-government any part of the Commission's terms of reference? Have they the power under the terms of reference, implied or otherwise, to investigate that aspect of the question; and, if so, is not that a direct violation of the White Paper?

Mr. AMERY: I have said that the question of responsible self-government was not implied in this White Paper any more than it was implied in the White Paper of 1923. I have allowed myself to go ahead into a remoter field in order to justify my earnest belief that this Commission, whatever it recommends in the way of some association of the settled community with the Government—and, of course, a measure of association already exists—should have in view the ultimate destiny of the black and the white man and the need for their mutual co-operation. Certainly we are not going to proceed by hurried steps in this matter. We have built up slowly and we are building up surely. We have to effect, in the first place, a closer union and a more effective co-ordination of East Africa whether as a whole block, or as regards certain parts which could be taken together, and then
so establish the foundations of progressive development towards self-government on the part of both black and white that they may fit in with each other so that when the day comes—and I admit that as far as the circumstances and conditions of East Africa are concerned it can only come after progressive and continued development over a considerable period of years—it will come under conditions which will make every party in this House feel satisfied that such a change will then be possible. That is a question of a relatively distant future.
The question to-day is the practical one of providing a better administrative and economic organisation in East Africa as a whole and laying the foundations upon which progress in the political as well as in the economic sphere can continue soundly, surely and steadily, on the part of both races and not on the part of one race alone. That is the whole position I wish to lay before the House to-day. It in no sense implies throwing over the essential principles of the Devonshire Report, but only gives a more constructive and positive interpretation to them justified by the rapid development of the last few years and the prospective development of the future. I have been asked a question with regard to the composition of the Commission. I have not yet been able to make all the arrangements, and therefore I cannot give the names. The idea in my mind is to keep it as small as possible and to appoint men directly able to deal with the special financial and administrative problems. I hope to have one representative of the India Office, who will be able to give us his experience not merely of Indian matters but on the federal problem which arises; and also to have someone representing the point of view of those who are specially concerned with the welfare of the natives.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will there be a native on the Commission?

Mr. AMERY: I think, under present conditions, that could hardly lead to good results. The day may come when the natives of East Africa may well be qualified to take part in a Commission, not only in regard to East Africa, but wherever the services of the Empire may call them. But we have to take things as they are, and I do not think
the presence of a native of East Africa to deal with problems entirely beyond the scope of his experience and training would be any help to the natives or to the Commission itself.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It has been stated in a book written lately by an expert, a German who was in East Africa, that from the point of view of agriculture it has been discovered that the Westerner, the European, can teach the native nothing in regard to the proper management of his land.

Mr. AMERY: I do not think the two things are inconsistent. It may well be that the native working man knows exactly what suits his own patch of land, and it may be that an impatient Westerner may spoil his land by ploughing too deeply, or in other ways, but it is also true that, on the whole, Western science is going to mean an immense improvement in agricultural conditions. I think I have dealt sufficiently, from the general point of view, with the East African problem. Perhaps I ought to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) on what he calls conscription, but what I prefer to call liability to compulsory training. Under the old Militia Acts that liability existed in this country until 1911. It exists still in the Channel Islands and in more than one British Dominion. This is a matter where it certainly is not my idea to intervene in order to impose any form of compulsory training for any territory within the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. In this particular case the subject has been before the community for several years. It has been discussed in all its aspects by the community and the measure proposed is a very moderate one, for registration and, if required, for a small amount of territorial training. Obviously when you are dealing with such a scattered population the conditions for securing a moderate amount of training on voluntary lines are not so good as they are in a densely populated country like ours where you can always get a volunteer unit in one of the great cities. There is, on the merits of the case, a call for some form of compulsory registration and some form of training. Whatever the merits may be it is not a measure that I should desire to impose on any community
unless that community had expressed a view in its favour. A measure of that sort has been under discussion for a long time before the last election, and I think in every case Members who were in favour of it were returned. The matter was brought before the local Legislative Council which, with the exception of one vote, were in favour of it and that vote was the vote of one of the Indian members who voted against the measure because he approved of compulsory training and complained that it was not extended to the Indian community. I think one of the two Nairobi members left the matter to a referendum of his constituents which showed a substantial majority in favour of it. Apart from the unanimity of the Legislative Council, I might add that the petition against the ratification of the measure was signed by, I think, some 1,300 persons of whom only 238 were voters.
In these circumstances I do not feel that there is any reason for the Secretary of State to veto what is now a clear expression of the opinion of the community. If any evils should arise in the administration of it, if it should be felt to be irksome, I have no doubt that the community would very readily introduce amending or reversive legislation and then I would not intervene. I entirely share the feeling of the hon. Member for Penistone that we do not wish to give a lead to the world in militarism; but I venture to suggest that all we have done since the Great War in the reduction of our armies, all we are doing at Geneva to-day, and the general easing-off in every direction of our armaments to the narrowest police limits give the lie to anyone who charges us with giving a lead in militarism. Nor do I think this very moderate measure of compulsory training, which is parallel with and indeed milder than the measures existing in more than one Dominion, to deal with the particular conditions of a scattered population and to economise in the maintenance of a permanent force, can be considered in any way to contravene our general principles in this matter. I thank the Committee for the courtesy with which they have listened to my reply, and I repeat that I am very glad that I can go off on my tour of the Dominions with the feeling that this
important subject has been ventilated in the House of Commons and that we are not open to the charge of neglecting matters which, simply because they are above party controversy, are often left unventilated.

Mr. THURTLE: In spite of the soothing words of the right hon. Gentleman, I think the Committee are still entitled to regard with suspicion the policy embodied in this White Paper. I think we can be certain that, sooner or later, the white settlers of Kenya are going to be admitted to either a small or a large part in the government of that Colony. I want the Committee to consider whether the admission of white settlers into the Government of Kenya is consistent with the pledge which we gave in 1923 that we would regard ourselves, specifically, as trustees of the natives in that area. Not only did we say that we were trustees of the natives, but that we could not delegate or share that trust. Furthermore, we laid down this specific condition that so far as Kenya was concerned, the interests of the natives would he paramount and that if and when those interests conflicted with the interests of the immigrant races, the interests of the natives should prevail. It is that point about which I am concerned. If the interests of the white settlers conflict with those of the native races, are we going to see to it that the interests of the native races prevail? If we admit white settlers into the Government and give them an important influence in that Government, it is dubious whether, should such a clash of interests occur, the natives will find their interests considered in preference to the white settlers' interests.
I do not wish to say anything harsh or unfair about the white settlers. I realise they are in a difficult position. They are not the dreadful exploiters of the natives which they are sometimes represented to be, but I do not believe that they are angels with sprouting wings, as some of my hon. Friends would appear to suggest. I believe they are just ordinary human beings like ourselves and apt to act as we would act in difficult conditions. What are the conditions in which the white settlers are living in Kenya? Many have invested a great deal of capital in land there and some have invested all their capital. They find that unless they get
a certain amount of labour for the cultivation of that land their investment will be largely thrown away. In these circumstances, there is a very strong self-interest in trying to secure as much native labour as possible. It is a notorious fact that at present there is nothing like an adequate supply of native labour for working the plantations. Many of the natives prefer to work in their own reservations rather than for the white settlers, and it the policy of the whites, animated by self-interest, to do everything they can to compel or induce the natives to leave their own reservations and work in the plantations.
To carry that policy into effect, certain means of pressure have been adopted. There has been a heavy increase in the head taxation upon natives. The result has been in many cases to compel young able-bodied men, against their will, to work for three or four months in the plantations of the white settlers. That is going to be the great conflict of interests in the future between the whites and the natives. In a case of that kind, it is better that an impartial tribunal like the House of Commons should defend the interests of the natives rather than have a body in Kenya to control these matters whose policy will be largely influenced by the white settlers. I realise that this discussion ought to come to an end because there is another matter of great national importance to Scotland to be discussed, and, without wishing to prolong this Debate, I submit that we have laid it down that we regard Kenya and its natives as being in our special trust and guardianship and, if we alter the constitution and Government of that country in such a way as to jeopardise the interests of the natives, then we shall be false to that trusteeship about which we have talked so much.

Mr. WALLHEAD: There are some points on which I desire a reply if it is possible before this Debate concludes. I understand that in connection with the International Labour Office, a committee of colonial experts has been or is being formed to look after native questions, particularly in relation to labour conditions. From a list submitted to me, I find that all kind of official persons are named in connection with that Committee such as the Director-General administering the Colonies of Belgium, an official representative
of our own and a representative of the Dutch East Indies. As far as I can see they are all whites and all officials. I suggest that some person should be included in that Committee who is conversant with Colonial labour conditions from a working class point of view. The point of view of the white settlers and of the Governors should not be considered exclusively and I hope that something will be done in the direction of appointing a member of this Committee who is in direct touch with the labour side of these questions affecting the natives. Some time ago the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Cecil Wilson) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question about a sentence of three years hard labour imposed upon Isa Macdonald Lawrence, a Nyasaland native for importing into Rhodesia six copies of "The Negro World" published in Philadelphia and two copies of the "Workers Herald" published in Johannesburg. The reply was:
If this native has been convicted under the Seditious Publications (Prohibition) Ordinance of 1918, he would in the ordinary course serve his sentence in Nyasaland, and the question of deportation would not arise. The Seditious Publications Ordinance was not passed as a War-time measure, and the question of its continuance is primarily a matter for the consideration of the Governor of the Protectorate in the light of local conditions. I shall, no doubt, receive a report from the Governor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1926; col. 803, Vol. 200.]
I wish to know if a report has been received about this matter because I understand that the Judge responsible for this sentence has been transferred to another district. I should also like to know why the Rhodesian authorities prevent the formation of branches of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union and why they take the line which they do take against allowing the natives to organise themselves in protective bodies in order to improve their conditions and standards of life. I wish to know if there is any chance of a revision of this sentence which seems to be a particularly harsh one for the offence of taking into this district a few newspapers.
Another question I have to put deals with a strike at Acre, in Palestine which, I understand, has been in progress for five months. It is a strike for the purpose of improving the industrial, and even the sanitary, conditions of people
engaged in the Nur match factory at Acre. I understand that recently the owners attempted to separate the Jews and the Arabs by attempting to persuade the Jews to throw over the Arabs and accept conditions for themselves. When this attempt to break the solidarity of the workpeople on strike failed, the whole of the people were regarded as having been dismissed, and blackleg labour was employed. This led to trouble, and the information I have is to the effect that there has been an attack on the pickets by the police. I am told the Palestinian Government employ British police. I know there is always a certain amount of resentment when these questions are raised, and that one has to be very careful, and I do not want to imply that our people out there have taken undue advantage of those whom they have to control, but a cablegram has been received which seems to imply that there is something which the Colonial Office ought to look into. It is stated that 13 girls and nine men were cruelly beaten, that they were picketing outside this Nur match factory, and that the British police, under the control of a non-commissioned officer, cruelly beat them. Batons were freely used and many of the pickets bled very freely as a result of the violence used against them. I am told that the violence, the brutality, was absolutely unjustified, that there was no reason whatever for the violence that was used.
I would like to know what are the facts of the case, and whether the Colonial Office here can take steps to have it looked into. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech that we must accept the care of these coloured peoples as a trust, that we must use our power righteously and justly. I am raising this question because I do not like the name of this country to be besmeared. The hon. Member may smile, but I am just as careful of the name of our people and of our country as anybody else, and I would like to know whether these things are right or wrong, and whether the statements are justified or not. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we must regard our trust in a very serious way and jealously guard our reputation as the trustees of the welfare of the peoples whom we govern, and I think some
answer should be made to the charges. I think the Committee have a right to know whether those statements are right or wrong, and I sincerely hope the statements can be proved to be incorrect.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Can the hon. Member say who made the statements? Was it a British citizen or a foreigner?

Mr. WALLHEAD: The cablegram is not signed by a British name. It is signed by a native. I do not propose to give the name unless—well, I will show it to the hon. and gallant Member if he likes; but I do not know whether I am justified in giving the name.

Sir H. CROFT: Surely after making such a serious charge, the hon. Member should give the name?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am asking whether this is correct or incorrect. I have given the text of the cable, and I am asking whether it is true. I am asking whether the Colonial Office can say whether these charges are justified or not, and I have said that I sincerely hope they will be proved to be incorrect. I sincerely hope the Under-Secretary will tell us whether there is any justification for these charges.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This is the first I have heard of this matter. The Government were given no warning that anything like this was going to be raised. We understood from the Opposition that the subject was to be East Africa. I have never seen the cablegram; I have never heard of the incident. I will make inquiries if the hon. Member will furnish me with the source of his information and inform me what the charge is. This matter has been sprung upon me, and I have absolutely no knowledge of what he has been talking about.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

CLASS 7.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £384,570, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
This reduction is being moved in order to call attention to one of a series of pictures which have been placed in St. Stephen's Hall. The series includes one picture which is supposed to be illustrative of our Scottish national contribution to the greater glory of the pageant of British history. Nothing that I have to say will be in the slightest degree in criticism of the very capable young artist who is responsible for the painting, of his treatment of the subject or of the painting as a work of art; nor will I utter one word derogatory to the wealthy patron who, from his abundance, has presented this canvas to the nation. For more than two centuries our historians and our poets, and the gangrel bodies with their chap books, from our national bard down to the humblest balladist, have seared into us as with a branding iron a hatred of two episodes in our history, two great humiliations, one the betrayal of Sir William Wallace by the fause Monteith, and the other the sale, for monetary bribes, of our national Parliament into an incorporating Union. Thank God, we have been spared a representation of the former episode in St Stephen's Hall, and we protest to-night against the latter episode being used as an illustration of all we have had to give towards the building of Britain.
In order that the Committee may understand our point of view in objecting to this episode, may I be allowed to recall briefly the historical setting? In 1681, Scottish factories were beginning to spring up. They were heavily protected. The late Sir Henry Craik, in a contribution to the history of Scotland, has described the economic position at that period. He tells us that in 1704 England closed her trade doors to Scotland as a reprisal for the organisation of our factories. She forbade the export or import of goods and ruined our cattle trade, which was then worth about £100,000 a year—the whole of our Scottish public revenue—and passed what was really an Aliens Act. Under these circumstances, colonies became an economic necessity to Scotland. Scotland raised, or attempted to raise, a sum of about £400,000—almost four years' public revenue—in order to fit out what was called in common parlance the Darien Expedition. A charter was
secured from the English King, and by the way, 2 per cent. of the prospective profits had to be promised to several great men at this end for securing the Royal Assent to the Charter.
After the Charter was secured, and public funds and trust funds of all kinds were being swept into the Darien Fund coffers, the English King discovered that he had given a Royal Assent to the initiation of a colonial enterprise which would be in competition with England's colonial enterprise, and he then did his best to crab the Darien scheme. When an attempt was made to raise money in Hamburg in order to assist the Scottish company, the English Ambassador there did his best to crab the finances. The English King turned adrift his two Secretaries of State for Scotland on the ground that he had been ill-advised in granting the Scottish Charter. The worst feature of it, however, was that instructions were sent to the Colonial Governors asking them, or urging them, or instructing them, to provide no assistance whatever to Scots' colonists under any circumstances. That advice was interpreted so literally by some of the Governors that starving Scottish refugees were refused food and Scots' fishermen, sinking and flying signals of distress, were refused assistance.
7.0 p.m.
When the Darien scheme failed, partly because of the opposition of England, though not wholly, and Scotland's money had gone, the English Government offered an incorporated Union between Scotland and England. They offered free trade on condition that Scotland would shoulder a share of the English National Debt. The English Government refused a federal Union, with which the Scottish Commissioners of all parties were in sympathy, and insisted on an incorporating Union and the abandonment in its entirety of the old Scots Parliament. As a further bribe or inducement to the Scots Parliament to agree, the English Government offered to reimburse the Darien shareholders in Scotland to the full extent of their scrip, plus 5 per cent. interest. They offered, further, to pay up the arrears of salaries—I am putting it in the most polite way—of the alleged great men who had been ruling Scotland up to that time, and they proposed an increase in the salaries
of the Scottish Judges in order to secure the assent of the judicial arm in the Scottish Government. Under the stress of all these persuasions the majority in the Scottish Parliament agreed to an incorporating Union. We got Free Trade between England and Scotland and the right to trade with English Colonies and a share of the English National Debt to pay for ever, and we got the right of a representation in this House equal in numbers to the representation allotted to the County of Cornwall in England.
Public opinion, so far as it was articulate, protested violently. There were riots in the streets, soldiers carrying bullion and gold were stoned, and there was a day of fasting and humiliation appointed by the Scots Kirk—whether it was observed or not I do not know. The text of the Treaty was publicly burned in several towns, and the names of the Commissioners who assented to it were also publicly burned. We have in St. Stephen's Hall a picture of some of these Commissioners. We have a picture there of some of the people, probably with pay tickets in their pockets, presenting the assent to the Incorporating Act to Her Late Majesty Queen Anne. What about the allegation of bribery? I know that many ingenious attempts have been made by Scottish and English historians to explain it away. One of them says it was the custom of the time—a little backsheesh.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: For all times.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) is a greater authority on that subject than I am, but there are some historians who allege that this bribery of the ruling people was a tradition and custom of the period. Forty years afterwards there was a man in Scotland who was hunted from pillar to post. Thousands of people knew him, and £30,000 was offered as a bribe for his betrayer, but not one man in all the North of Scotland would give him away. Then there are some historians even in our time who go the length of denying the bribery stories altogether. The bribery story began with the statement made by Lockhart of Carnwarth, who himself was one of the Commissioners, sent to treat with the English Commissioners
for this incorporating union. It is not true, as this Guide Book which is on sale in this House says, that Lockhart of Carnwarth is one of the figures in the picture, for he refused to sign the Treaty. Whatever else is wrong about it the Guide Book is wrong from the beginning in this respect. Lockhart of Carnwarth was one of the Commissioners, and all these Commissioners were appointed, not by the Parliament, but by the English Queen Anne. He was one of the men who refused to sign, and he declared that there was a total sum of £20,540—and I believe that was a gross underestimate—spent more or less directly or indirectly under one pretence or another in bribery. He says £8,215 of that sum was given under the pretence of arrears of salary.
Let us see what the more modern historians have to say about it. Granting that Lockhart of Carnwarth was prejudiced and that he was a Jacobite and would wish to do everything possible to minimise the influence of the other Commissioners who hail signed the Treaty, what does Hill Burton say? In Volume 8, page 182, Hill Button gives an exhaustive examination of Lockhart's charges. Hill Burton himself was more an advocate for the defence than an historian in this matter, but still he is constrained to admit:
There is no doubt that the money was clandestinely transferred from England to Scotland and kept out of the usual official channels, and the Committee"—
that is the Committee of the English Parliament which later on inquired into the charges—
and the Committee pass some slight censures on this secrecy and irregularity.
Then in the Jerviswood Correspondence, page 160, the Secretary of the Parliament, Johnstone, definitely alleged that members had been bribed, and Professor Hume Brown, on page 101, Vol. 3 of his history, says:
It seems probable that certain sums of money were spent in procuring the support of influential persons for the union.
The Lord Clerk register, James Murray, writes to the Earl of Mar—and this may be found in the Mar and Kellie Papers of 20th November, 1705:
His Grace"—
that is the Chief Commissioner for the English Court—
wishes His Lordship to remind the Queen of some secret disbursements he had made
when Commissioner, for which he had secret instructions but which, because of their nature, could not be stated in the accounts with the Treasury.
All that evidence seems to me emphatic, but, in case there is some hon. Member opposite who would like something more definite still, I would refer to the Carstares Papers, of which there is a copy in the Public Library of this House—page 638. Carstares was the secret agent for King William's Government in Scotland and his confidential adviser. In the Carstares Papers, we find, on page 638, a letter from Queensberry to Mr. Carstares, as he then was:
As to the money which seems necessary for the good of the King and the country's services, after reflection, I am of opinion that none ought to be remitted here; but that a thousand pounds should be lodged, as soon as can be, in the Bank of England and their notes taken for it. There is no use for any known name in them, for they are payable to the bearer. So that a fictitious, or any servant's name, is sufficient. Let these notes be sent to me hither. I have already laid out £500, and I believe in a short time I shall have occasion to dispose of the rest.
On page 583, we get an even more emphatic statement which has been frequently quoted by historians. There is the letter from Queensberry to Car-stares:
I must tell you one thing which you mast keep very secret. I had yesterday a private message from my cousin, my Lady Marshall, by which she tells me that she does not doubt of bringing her Lord entirely under my direction, providing that she may have leave to promise him a pension of £300 as E. Marshall. I have allowed her to do it; and if I had the gift in my custody, I doubt not of breaking him off from that party. … In short, if money could be had. I would not doubt of success in the King's business here, but the low condition of our treasury keeps many things out of my power.
So much for the historians. We now come to the novelists. Take Sir Walter Scott, who cannot be accused of being a Radical, although he may have been tainted with Jacobite sentiments. On several occasions, he made reference to the circumstances under which this Treaty was secured. Then there are Burns's lines, which have been burned into the memories of every Scottish boy and girl:
Now Sark rins o'er the Solway sands, And Tweed rins to the ocean;
To mark where England's Province stands, Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Seafield's brother, the one who became a cattle dealer in later years, was once remonstrated with by Seafield himself for engaging in the ignoble trade of cattle dealing, and it is on record that he answered his statesman brother by saying:
Better sell nowt than sell a nation.
So much for the men and the methods by which this Incorporating—not a federal—Union was secured. Some may say, "Look at the beneficial results, and the great advantages which Scotland gained economically and otherwise as a result of this incorporating movement." I am far from seeking to maintain that even the incorporating Union was an unmixed evil, but I do deny that it was an unmixed blessing. We got free trade and peace on the borders—God knows our sorely distraught land sadly needed peace in those days—and our cattle trade benefited, but our nascent industries were ruined. As Professor Scott, who writes an essay in the volume published in connection with the bi-centenary of the Union by the "Glasgow Herald" says:
Our nascent industries were ruined as a result of the Incorporating Union.
Our taxation increased. We shoulder a share of the English National Debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I can quite understand the mirth with which Englishmen ought to indulge in consideration of the financial relationship between the two countries, but, as I hope to show, no such mirth is justifiable from the Scotsman's point of view. Take the position to-day. Presumably, taxation is raised fairly. Presumably, the Income Tax is the same for Englishmen as for Scotsmen and Welshmen. Presumably, indirect taxation is paid according to consumption on both sides of the border, equally, but how is the national revenue spent? Take the Goschen proposals, laid down by the late Lord Goschen, that about eleven-eightieths was Scotland's fair proportion. I do not think that has changed much since then; although it may have changed. What proportion of the national revenue is spent on Scotland? What proportion of the expenditure upon the Army, the Navy, and naval establishments and what proportion of the Air Force expenditure are spent in Scotland. We have asked questions in this House on the subject and we are blandly informed that since 1921 no such
particulars can be given. The hon. Gentleman representing the Navy declines to tell us what is the share of public expenditure on the Navy spent in Scotland. We learn in an indirect way the expenditure on soldiers' wages, and we know that only one soldier in 17 spends his wages in Scotland.
I have heard it said, and some of my hon. Friends behind me say: "You may not have any share in Government expenditure; the Civil Service money may be spent down here, Navy money may be spent down here; the money of the Arsenal, the dockyards, the Navy and the Air Force may be spent down here, but look how you come after it!" Quoting a statement by an English Johnson:
The pleasantest prospect a Scotsman ever saw was the road over the border into England.
What are the facts? Hon. Members who tell us that, or who affect to believe that, might oblige before this discussion is over by going down and examining the census figures, stored in this House, and they will find that in 1921, the year of the last census, with a London population of 4,500,000—I think it is roughly 4,500,000–49,000 men and women of Scots birth were resident in London, while in Glasgow with a million of a population there were over 42,000 Englishmen resident there. There is a far bigger proportion of men and women of English birth resident in Glasgow than of men and women of Scots birth resident in London. I hope, therefore, that that solar myth will disappear for ever.
As there are other hon. Members who desire to take part in this discussion I will not detain the House at any greater length, but I should like to say that we are facing the fact, Socialist Members, Liberal Members, Conservative Members, that our Scottish nation is bleeding to death. No one can deny that, and if we were to accept without protest a glorification of the incorporated union, engineered as we believe under a cloud of corruption, it would mean that we acquiesce in race suicide. There could have been chosen a better subject than that in St. Stephen's Hall. If it had been desired to choose a Scottish illustration of the Union, why not a picture illustrating the
tariff barriers being swept away on the border. There were hundreds of other subjects that might have been chosen. If you go back into the dawn of history for your English subjects, you might have chosen Galgachus at Mons, Grampius addressing the Caledonian soldiers, and perhaps quoting the noble words that Tacitus put into his mouth, or you might have had a representation of Saint Columba. There are hundreds of subjects that could have been chosen, and not this picture of gentlemen with fee tickets in their pockets, after selling their national Parliament, presenting their dockets to Queen Anne.
I am fully aware that national sentiment fills no empty bellies, but if we lose pride and honour in our kith and our kin we shall become nothing but an empty belly, and then we shall die. I am a Scotsman, and I am proud of it, and I feel a better Briton and a better internationalist for the fact. I regard it as a very curious form of internationalism, which I have heard indicated on these benches, which advocates Home Rule for India, Egypt, Kenya, Timbuctoo, everywhere and anywhere but Scotland. To each one of us there is given some place that he calls home; some place where we imbibe our traditions, our culture, our speech, our song; where our kin dwell and where our ancestors lie buried. No Scotsman has ever surrendered his essential and distinctive national characteristics, and we decline to acquiesce in the glorification of the absorption of our nationality. The greatest Scotsman who ever lived, Robert Burns, was not ashamed to say that "there poured in him a flood of Scottish sentiment that would not cease until the floodgates of life shut in eternal rest." Robert Burns was not ashamed, neither are we ashamed.

Mr. BUCHAN: I venture to intervene in this Debate in the interests of international amity. The question before the Committee is obviously a very big one. The picture in St. Stephen's Hall has been the gift of private donors, and it is always a delicate matter to look a gift horse in the mouth. I think there will be general agreement in the Committee that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has performed the task of inspection with good taste and good humour. He has given us a speech, part
of which is of great historical interest, while part dealt with certain current controversies, in which I do not propose to follow him. One thing I would like to say at the outset is that the spirit which is behind the speech of my hon. Friend has my warmest approval, and I am sure the approval of every Scottish Member in this House. My hon. Friend's plea is for a more careful consideration of Scottish susceptibilities and Scottish interests. He is jealous that anything that is living and valuable in our Scottish traditions should be maintained and that our Scottish culture should not be obliterated by the cruel hoof of modern progress. In that I think he is entirely right.
Just as no man would be a good citizen of the Empire who is not first of all a good Briton or a good Australian or Canadian, so no man can be or will be a good Briton unless he is first of all a good Englishman or a good Welshman or a good Scotsman. If the time ever came when all these traditions were obliterated and the people of these islands were reduced to one dull, common denominator, then I think it would be a bad day for Scotland and it would be a bad day for the British Commonwealth. If my hon. Friend means to fight for the retention of everything that is living and valuable in Scottish culture, then I am entirely on his side, and I would ask our friends of the South to be patient with our national fervour, when it is really in their own interests. No less a person that Sir Walter Scott once said:
If you unscotch us you make us damned mischievous Englishmen.
While I wholly agree and sympathise with the spirit of my hon. Friend, I think he is wrong in the particular issue which he has raised. As I understood him, he objects to the particular subject chosen for the Scottish picture in St. Stephen's Hall and he objects on three main grounds. If I misinterpret him he will correct me. In the first place, as I understood him. he thinks that the Union of 1707 is a rather discreditable affair, procured largely by bribery and for ignoble means. In the second place, he would argue that that Union left a very bitter memory behind it in Scotland; that the bitterness has not yet gone and that some subject might have been found more attractive to Scottish
pride. In the third place, he would argue that the episode itself is not one of first importance; that it does not rank in importance with the English episodes portrayed and that some Scottish subject might have been found of far greater value and significance.
May I be allowed to take these points separately? I do not think that anyone to-day could read the story of the Union with an unbiased mind and conclude that the thing was discreditable either to Scotland or to England. I am not speaking for the moment of what went before; I am not speaking of the Darien scheme, or of a good deal of the English bullying which happened about that time; but I am speaking of the actual events of the Union itself. At that time the need was desperate. Scotland was starving from lack of capital and from lack of opportunity. For government she had a relic of the Middle Ages. England was engaged in a great war with France, the Jacobite menace was deadly and it was by an unfriendly and detached Scotland that she was constantly being threatened on her rear. Let us remember that in Scotland some of the best elements of the country were in favour of the Union. It was supported by all the chief leaders of the Church of Scotland, the great bulk of the middle classes, and even considerable elements of the population, covering such varied interests as the fisherfolk of Ayr and the weavers of Aberdeen, though I am bound to say the Aberdeen weavers did not seem quite to have understood the Union, because they spelt it "onion." Opposition to the Union came from men like Belhaven and Fletcher of Saltoun, who talked most eloquently of the losses of the ancient liberties of Scotland; but the real power of the opposition came from men who wanted to keep Scotland as a jumping-off place for the next Jacobite rising.
I will not deny for one moment that there are many discreditable elements in the actual procedure, but I think that is found in other great movements of the time. Hon. Members may remember that the Habeas Corpus Bill only passed the House of Lords because the tellers by way of a joke counted one very fat peer as 10. The Union was only passed by that kind of accident, and, when the moment of crisis arrived, its supporters were in fear of their lives. The result was felt in every part of Scotland. An
ex-provost of Edinburgh had his head broken in the street and the name of the ex-provost was the same as that of the hon. Member for Dundee. Fate intervened because the leader of the opposition to the Union was the Duke of Queensberry and the Duke of Queensberry was then rather a lovable thing, an entirely incompetent Scotsman. The moment the crisis arrived his nerve failed him, and, just as the Habeas Corpus Bill was passed with the aid of a corpulent peer, so was the Union due to the Duke of Queens-berry. I admit there may have been a little money passing hands, but it is almost too small to be dignified by the name of bribery. It is a story which originally came from Jacobite sources, and was assisted by a succession of more modern stories, but no doubt the conclusion is that there was a little illicit payment. After all, when you have two countries at the cross roads, it is not surprising that there should be a little dirty work at those cross-roads. The main payments were made for arrears of salaries and pensions, and there were also some small payments for expenses. In those days, it must be remembered, it cost £500 to travel to London from Scotland, and that was more than the income of the ordinary Scottish peer. Lord Rosebery, in 1707, was so impoverished that he asked to be allowed to decline membership of the Commission, because he could not pay his stabling expenses. A certain amount of arrears of pensions and salaries and a certain amount of travelling expenses—that was very nearly all the bribery, and surely that is a very insignificant matter.
I come to the second point. No doubt the Union roused very bitter memories. Seafield said:
It is the end of an old sang,
and for many a day the new song was a most mournful ditty. But very soon, within 50 years, that bitterness gradually died away, and survived only as a Jacobite memory, and really it is as absurd to attempt to resuscitate it and emphasise it to-day as it would be for some of us to object to a statue of, say, Queen Victoria, though some of our families suffered severely in her reign. No doubt Scotland made great sacrifices in the Union. She lost two of her
ancient institutions, and she had a bitter blow given to her national pride. But was the loss so very great after all? Her Parliament was a piece of ridiculous lumber. It was utterly unrepresentative and thoroughly subservient. Some said it was not a Chamber, but an ante-Chamber of the English court. I have only been able to discover one good custom about that Parliament. When a peerage was to be given, it was necessary to mention the name of the recipient to the Scottish Parliament and explain elaborately his qualifications. I commend that trait in Parliamentary procedure to our present Parliament. Scotland gained in the loss of her Parliament. It was to my mind an inestimable boon that Scotland was forced back on herself. In 50 years the energy of her sons had brought her to the position she occupies to the delight of the modern world. Free of all partisan warfare, she was destined to become within a century a pioneer of industry, banking, thought, science and literature. Was there no gain in that? Would that great development have taken place at the end of the 18th century if Scotland had remained, as before the Union, a prey to mediæ;val lawyers? In losing one kind of independence she gained a far greater kind of independence, of spirit, and, in losing one kind of pride, she won a better pride, the pride of achievement. The Union emancipated the Scottish middle-class, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee knows, in the long run and after a long battle that meant the emancipation of the people at large.
I come to the last point. Will my hon. Friend really argue that the Union, which inaugurated so great a revolution, is not of the first importance? The pictures in St. Stephen's Hall are supposed to represent the high lights of our Constitution, and the most important, the culminating one, is the Union of the ancient enemies. I should regard that as a compliment. If you portrayed some such subject as the coronation of Robert Bruce, you would have a memorial to the winning of Scottish independence. If you portrayed the events in the reign of James I, you would have a memorial of the Union of the Crown. But in this picture you commemorate something far greater, the Union of two
people—a Union under which the little nation of Scotland, having made its peace with its foes and won its own salvation, was able to play a great part in the history of modern Britain. Since the year 1707 there have been eight Scottish Prime Ministers of Britain, more if you count the present Prime Minister, who is half a Scotsman. In every great Imperial enterprise Scotsmen have shared, and in many cases they have been leaders. The events of 1707, to my mind, did far more to unite Scotland and England. They united Scotland and the world at large.
I would make one final point far the consideration of my hon. Friend. We do not know what the future may bring forth. It is possible that our Parliamentary system may become top heavy and that means must be found to ease its burden by some kind of devolution. It is possible that the Parliamentary Union of England and Scotland may in time prove unworkable, and, in the interests of efficient government, the step taken in 1707 may have to be retraced. The time may come when once again a Scottish Parliament will sit in Edinburgh under the shadow of the Castle Rock. I do not know. I am no prophet. But, if such a time should ever come, then surely this picture will acquire a very special significance and value, for it will he a memorial of the events which inaugurated the Parliamentary Union which has lasted for more than 200 years, during which the two allies have played a great part in the world's story. In these two and a-half centuries, Scotland and England in a single Parliament have between them created the British Empire as we know it to-day; they have fought the greatest of all wars; and they have given us the greatest democracy of the world. Let no hon. Member grudge them to the Palace of Westminster a memento of an event so illustrious and so fruitful.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I think an Englishman ought to be allowed to say a word or two in this Debate, and the more so because those of us who are English have to reflect that one result of the Act of 1707 has been to enable those who sit in this House as Englishmen for English constituencies to enjoy the comradeship of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) who raised this question, and our newcomer, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the
Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) who has charmed us so much. If on other grounds I might be disposed as an Englishman to have some criticism regarding the Act of Union, I would say that, at any rate, it has brought us in this House some pleasures with which we should be very sorry to dispense. This is not solely a Scottish question. The Act of 1707 did not merely put an end to the Scottish Parliament, but to the English Parliament. I am astonished to find an hon. Gentleman who calls himself a Scotsman and who does not know the simple fact that the English Parliament ceased in 1707 and that there was created in place of the Scottish and the English Parliaments the British Parliament to which we all now belong. It is far from being the case, as the hon. Member for Dundee seemed almost to imply, that the Act of Union is an event resented on the Scottish side of the border and welcomed with open arms on the English side. Dean Swift observed about it, that it was an extremely difficult thing for a man to make posies by bundling thistles up with roses. A great many people think that the present combination adds a great deal of pungency and interest, because we draw these supplies from such varied sources. On the other hand, though it is true, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said, that there was considerable resentment for a time in Scotland, the mature judgment of the wisest Scotsmen very soon came to the conclusion that the Act of Union was good for Scotland. Thomas Carlyle thought so. He thought and wrote that the Union with England was one of Scotland's chief blessings, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee has quoted Sir Walter Scott, no doubt he knows as well as some of the rest of us that Scott expressed the very strongest view on that subject. Scott wrote to Maria Edgeworth when there was a very much more doubtful and distressing union, the Union of 1800, and he said in reference to the Scottish Union of nearly 100 years before
It was an event which, had I lived in that day, I would have risked my life to have prevented, but which, being done before my day, I am sensible, was a wise scheme.
The truth is, that after a certain amount of irritation and misunderstanding at the time, not only on one side of the Border but on both, had had time to die
away and things had settled down, it became obvious that it was, as a matter of fact, one of the events in the Constitution of this island about which even historians have meditated very much less than on many others, precisely for the reason that it is probably the most successful example of Union which you can find in the history of all countries.
I have no desire to enter into competition with the learned or national fervour on the Scottish side shown by those Members who have preceded me, but I will only observe that I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee did not quote what I should have thought was the best known passage reflecting the criticism which some Scotsmen have made upon the Union of 1707. Andrew Fairservice was so foolish as to complain that because his horse had lost its shoe it was all due to the deteriorating influence of the Union, and what was it that Bailie Nicol Jarvie said? I will not offend better-trained ears by reading it in such Scots as I can command, but I will transliterate for the benefit of more ignorant persons. What he said was this:
Whisht, Sir, whisht. It's ill-scraped tongues like yours that makes mischief atween neighbourhoods and nations. There's naething sae gude on this side o' time but it might hae been better, and that may be said o' the Union. Nane were keener against it than the Glasgow folk, with their rabblings, and their risings and their mobs, as they ca' them now-a-days. But it's an ill wind blaws naebody gude—I say, Let Glasgow flourish! whilk is judiciously and elegantly putten round the town's arm, by way of by-word.—Now, since St. Mungo catched herrings in the Clyde, what was ever like to gar us flourish like the sugar and tobacco trade Will anybody tell me that, and grumble at the treaty that opened us a road west-awa' yonder?
These are the two views of the Union with Scotland. But, according to the eminent Bailie of Glasgow, it was only the more vulgar and more impetuous influences which denounced the Union, and all reflecting and careful Scotsmen soon came to see that it was a most admirable device. May I say in a concluding sentence what I feel most deeply, that this discussion does call attention to the way in which it is possible to reconcile an intense racial pride with the greater unity which ought to be part of the composition of every man who
glories in calling himself a Briton. It is a clear example in our history of that most remarkable combination—intense deathless pride in the things which attach to one's own race, and tradition and folk and literature, combined with the willingness to join in sharing citizenship with a people of a somewhat different origin. Those who imagine for a single moment that the Act of Union is likely to destroy Scottish nationalism can have no idea at all of the impression which Scottish nationalism makes upon others who regard it and see it in operation. Scottish nationalism has been made, as I believe, all the stronger by the circumstance that it is no longer associated with the spirit and outlook of the Jacobite, resisting, and, as it would appear, almost ready to come to blows with any movement and advance which threatened to overwhelm it. It is of the essence of progress in a community like ours that we should give the fullest play to this intense proud racial movement, and to all that belongs to it; and Scotsmen will take very good care that they maintain all that belongs to them. It is essentially fallacious to suppose that they are in the least degree degraded or ridiculed by putting on the walls of the Palace of Westminster a record of one of the most successful, and in the end one of the most beneficent, transactions which was ever entered into between the people of two countries.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I have been surprised at such eminent Members of this House talking in the way they have regarding this Debate to-night. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken put up a man of straw, and then knocked it down. We are not discussing to-night the benefits that accrue from the Union; what we are discussing is the method by which it was attained, and the picture that has been placed in St. Stephen's Hall to depict the building up of our Empire. So that all that has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) might have been left aside. I do not know of any Scot to-day who says that the Union with England at that time was not desirable, but it was a Federal Union that was wanted, not an incorporating one. It is true that Scott said that it was a good thing for Scotland, but he also said that if was one of the most disgraceful episodes that ever
afflicted a country. I want you to remember that when Scott was writing his history, "Tales of a Grandfather," he was writing it for a beloved grandson. To Hugh Littlejohn, or John Hugh Lockhart, he was writing the memoirs of his history, and if a man like Scott with all his Conservative traditions was against the methods which were employed by Scotsmen at that time, surely it becomes us also to be against those methods.
I was really amazed at the way in which the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) mixed up history. He knows better. If it had been some person who knew nothing about Scotland or Scottish history I could have excused him, but seeing who he is, a man who is looked up to in our country, a son of the Manse, a man of genius, why, if it gets abroad in the papers what he has been saying, what will they say? He will have the Press, but I shall have the argument. After all, what are the facts of the case? Why does he say that this was a great and glorious happening in Scottish history? He said that it was getting rid of a piece of lumber. Well, that may be so. It may have been lumber to many people, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what kind of Parliament they had in England then? I am quite certain that the Scottish Parliament would have compared very favourably with the English Parliament at that time. It was corrupt to the very teeth, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland knows that as well as I do. But we are not discussing the Union; we are discussing a picture. I have no technical knowledge and I have to turn to my hon. Friend (Mr. MacLaren) for any technical knowledge I have, and even that I distrust. I am wondering whether this picture is finished. If it is finished, I shall be very well pleased—my hon. Friend says it is not—because most of the Commissioners who put this money into their pockets would then be left in eternal shame. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities talked about the money which was to be given to these men who carried through the Union, and he laughingly said that if a little filtered through there was no harm.
8.0 p.m.
The custom to-day is to try to discredit all the information that we have on this subject. He said that the ill-feeling
would soon pass, but the ill-feeling was not past when Burns wrote that song which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) quoted, and that was over 75 years after the Union. The ill-feeling did not pass away then, because it was well known in Scotland and by Burns who had brought about the Union and all the shame that attached to it. After all, it was a miserable pittance and a Judas price they got. They were very poor Scots who made such a bargain. If you are going to sell your birthright, surely you should get a mess of pottage for it. But it was all they were worth, because they were a degenerate lot, every one of them. As for the Earl of Marchmont, I agree with Scott when he said:
This is the end of an auld song. Scotsmen should have fallen upon him and
murdered him.
And the end of a great and glorious tradition was this: After fighting for independence, both spiritual, religious, and political, after fighting all the way for our independence at the very end of the day, Scotland was given up by those men for the paltry sums of money that they put in their own pockets—that was the end of it. No; it will not do to say that there was no bribery. There was. As has been very well said, everybody concerned received money. The Provost of my own native town got £100; better than some of them. My Lord of Banff got £11, and, besides that paltry sum, he had to give up his religion. He was a good Catholic, and he became a Protestant in order to get his vote in, and all he got was this paltry £11. [Interruption.] I do not think breweries flourished in those days, so that there was no question of any share in any brewery. It is not right to say, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities said, that the great middle-class was in favour of this Union. It is a perversion of history to say anything of the kind. The members of the great middle class—the artisan class, the ordinary folk and the clergy—were all up against this Union to a man Every one of them to a man, and the General Assembly also, was against the Union until they had a great many promises regarding the preservation of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland.
I hate to say these things in this House, but it is not true to talk about Jacobism and to dare to say that Fletcher of Saltoun was a Jacobite. I never knew that he cared for change at any time. He was a profound Republican, and he was against this Union because he believed that his country was to be sold, and he fought against it and spoke against it and worked against it in a way that very few men did at that time. Not all the great ones of Scotland were against it. It is true that His Grace the Duke of Hamilton did not play a very manly part in these transactions. I have no doubt that he was anxious to be against the union, but some things side-tracked that desire, and he was unable to carry through his obligations. There were others who were against the union who did not say very much. There were Jacobites on the side of the negotiating Committee who brought about the union. I remember that the Earl of Mar was very prominent in bringing about the union, and alongside of the Earl of Mar was the great Stair, the hero of Glencoe, who had a part in bringing about this Union, but who died before he saw the fruition of all his eloquence and of all the pains he had taken. I know he was a great jurist, but he was not a very great patriot, nor were any of those who dared to bring about this union great patriots.
But I do not want to get away and discuss even the personalities who brought about this Union. It is the picture we are discussing, and I want the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works to take this into consideration. Why should he hurt the susceptibilities of any people at all? I see a statue outside this House of the great Cromwell. Why is it there? Why is it not inside the House of Commons? Everybody knows why. It is because there was a strong Irish party in this House and they were united and determined on the matter. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Office of Works knows all about that, and he knows that it was because there was a strong and united Irish party here. If the Scottish Unionists and the Scottish Liberals were all determined on the matter we are now discussing, then that picture would be blotted out. That is what we are asking to-day.
Why should we sit quietly under a picture of that kind? Every time we come up St. Stephen's Hall our eyes are drawn to it. They are always drawn to it. One cannot help seeing this Judas thing there. Why should we allow a thing like that to stand there if we can possibly get it removed? And so I plead with the representative of the Office of Works to say to the donor, "We do not want this picture at all." The donor was a Scot, and I am aware that there are Scots in this House who think that this gentleman has done a meritorious act in presenting St. Stephen's Hall with this picture. But I think that the donor might have chosen some other subject. If he had chosen any other one of a dozen or a hundred other subjects which depict the rise of our Empire, every one of us would have been grateful, and none of us would have been standing here questioning the Vote for the Office of Works at all. If it be possible to remove this thing which has burnt itself into the hearts and minds of the Scottish people for 200 years, if it can be removed, why should we not do something which will placate and soften the feelings of Scottish Members in this House? Lord Belhaven has been spoken of, but he made one of the greatest speeches ever made in any Parliament in defence of the Scottish honour, and what he said was sneered at by the Earl of Marchmont. It would have been far better for his daughter Lady Grisel to have left him to starve in the vault of Polworth Church than that he should have lived to sneer at Lord Belhaven.
It was not the union that made Scotland prosper. Scotland was bound to prosper, and even after the union we were flouted of things that we ought to have got. Those things were not given us and that action brought Scotland to the edge of rebellion. The way we were treated since the Act of Union took place brought Scotland to the edge of rebellion, and why did we only have 45 Members where we ought to have had 66? Why should the old nobility of Scotland have to suffer a diminution in their ranks, and even to-day there are only 16 Members who represent the whole of Scotland in another place. I am no believer in the hereditary principle, but at any rate Scotland did not get fair play. It is because of all that went before, because we have not been fairly treated, because of all
that happened at the time and for many years afterwards, because of the strong desire throughout Scotland to be treated fairly, that we are speaking against the exhibition of this picture in the hall of St. Stephen's. I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee in asking that this picture should be removed altogether.

Mr. SKELTON: I think there is no doubt, from the character of the speeches delivered, as to the extraordinary interest which this topic has aroused. It has aroused interest not only among Scotsmen but, judging from the speech that has been delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) it is clear that English Members have been interested in a topic very much removed from our ordinary discussions in this House. I should like to address one or two observations on what is to all Scottish Members and to all Scotsmen, a topic of peculiar interest, and it is because I feel, as others feel, the peculiar value of the character, of the interest, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) said of the idiom of the Scottish race, that I venture to add a word on this topic. Whether or not we want this picture removed must, in the first place, depend on whether we regard the union as a matter of ignominy for Scotland or not. I do not. I cannot think that the union, looked at broadly, leaving aside the exact proportion of Scottish Members in the two Houses and the comparatively small sum which may have been spent in oiling the wheels, leaving aside these small matters, I cannot but think that the junction of Scotland with England in one united and corporate country was neither a matter of ignominy for the smaller country nor for the greater. It seems to have been the natural step in the evolution of the history of this island.
I would like to make one observation on a matter which has not been raised before. We say that the union was a mistake, an ignominy, and a failure. When that is said, I think it is only right to ask what did the union of the Parliaments prevent? It unquestionably prevented—and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) will not dissent from this—a war between
England and Scotland. Such a war, with the progress of the English people and the progress of warlike knowledge, would not only have been far more severe and bloody than any previous war between the two countries, but it would also have meant that Scotland, once again at the beginning of a new century—a century which, as it turned out was a century of immense progress, as has been so well said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities—would have been a destroyed, shattered and ruined country.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What about England?

Mr. SKELTON: I think that observation needs no answer. Everybody who cares for history, at all events, knows how constantly in the history of Scotland promising hours and promising centuries were destroyed, time and time again, by the warfare between the two countries. I say that, had the Union been a hundred times more corrupt, had it been a picture as black as hon. Members opposite have painted it, I still believe that the corporate union, as an alternative to the war which would almost unquestionably have broken out, was a step in the history of Scotland and of the two countries which no sane Scotsman would wish not to have been taken.
The hon. Member who preceded me in his own person has shown with what dignity and what acceptance to Scotland he could fulfil one of the duties that has been placed, on public men by that Union. He said, though I think he rather departed from it at a later stage of his speech, that it was a fact that it was an incorporating and not a federal Union that he chiefly felt strongly about, and that unquestionably raises a most interesting question. Was it better for Scotland, assuming that you were going to have a Union at all, that Scottish public life should, as it were, come to Westminster? I think it was, and I will tell the Committee why. Scotland through the centuries had acquired a character which from the martial or the religious point of view, or half-a-dozen points of view which I need not enumerate, was of the very highest type, but there was, I think it must be agreed by all who study history, one element in the life of the citizen which circumstances
largely had made it impossible to develop. I mean the Parliamentary and public sense. I hope in loyalty to Scotland I give place to no one, but it cannot honestly be said that there was the same Parliamentary tradition, the same tradition of civic public life in Scotland that there was in the Parliament which had seen Pym and Cromwell.
I believe it was of immense value to Scotland in the new stage of civilisation that was opening in the eighteenth century, a stage in which the main battles of the country were to be fought upon the floor of Parliament and not upon the field of battle, that her real Parliamentary life should begin, her real Parliamentary knowledge should commence, in what, after all, is the Mother of Parliaments and the home of all that could be learned about how to conduct a country through Parliamentary methods. She was not slow to learn. Since the Union no fewer than eight Scotsmen have been Prime Ministers. But I believe the fact that it was an incorporated Union, that Scotsmen who desired to take part in public and Parliamentary life came and learned their business at the fountain head. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend smiles, but I think his smile is not altogether one of dissent. I believe it was a most valuable feature of the history of Scotland.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that all the Scottish Commissioners were hostile to an incorporating Union, and that all of them desired a federal Union, and, with reference to the other question the hon. Member addressed to me in a rhetorical form, does he for a moment imagine that Scotland learned anything in the way of public business by coming to the English Parliament?

Mr. SKELTON: I will answer the two questions without hesitation. I was dealing with the most interesting question raised by the hon. Member who preceded me, whether an incorporated Union was the right or the wrong sort. If you look at the history of Scotland carefully, you will find that natural causes have prevented the same development of Parliamentary life north of the Tweed that has come south. It was a matter of real value that it was as part and parcel of the new united Parliament that Scotland began Parliamentary life in what was
the first peaceful century of her history. These are the reasons, stated very broadly, that gave Scotland, by one of those fortunate chances of history that never seem to be absent from these islands, at the psychological moment an opportunity of coming without hesitation to the fountain head of Parliamentary tradition and knowledge. These were matters of great importance to the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), while disclaiming the qualities of a prophet, suggested that there might be a time when further devolution might produce some qualification or alteration of the present system. I, for one, am inclined to think that you cannot regard in the history of the nation any system as necessarily permanent or final, but be that as it may, should there be some devolution, some alteration in the present system, and if Scot and has to take up some part of the burden of Parliamentary life for herself North of the Tweed, Scotland will come to that new duty and that new responsibility not as a minor member, not as inferior to England; she will come to it with a full knowledge of Parliamentary life, and she will come because she is ready. At some future time it may he she will come to it, and then she will be ready to take up some part of the Parliamentary burden which is now exclusively and, as I think, very onerously carried on within this Chamber. But that an event so significant, a stage so important in the life of Scotland, should not be commemorated with the acceptance of all Members of the House in St. Stephen's Hall seems to me to argue, even in so well-instructed a Scottish historian as the hon. Member for Dundee, a lack of sense of proportion and a desire to confuse mere tiny matters of method with the great broad result which I, for my part, do not think is worthy either of his intellect or his position in this House.

Mr. MacLAREN: I think it is appropriate to say something on the general question of these pictures and the other decorations in the House. I am glad this discussion has arisen, although it has taken place more because of the subject of the pictures than because of their æ;sthetic and artistic qualities. It might not be altogether inappropriate if one were to say it is high time some sense
of co-ordination impressed itself in the general decoration of this building. When I come into the Inner Hall and see the statue of the late Joseph Chamberlain, I feel more indignant at that than I do about the paintings on the wall. I have seldom seen a more crude effigy of any respectable Member of the House than the effigy standing outside that door, and I hope, if there are to be any other Members of the House commemorated, they will not take the form of a full-sized statue, because these pedestals, and the proportions immediately around them, call for at least a bust if you are going to put anything there at all. When you have these truncated gentlemen in flannelette trousers and cheese-like frock coats stuck upon them, I feel something ought to be done in way of iconoclasm or vandalism to clean these monstrosities out of the place.
One thing to be said about the pictures in St. Stephen's Hall is that they are a relief and a general improvement on the ghastly things that stood there before. We had the painting of the Unknown Warrior, which was a most pathetic performance, giving a very vivid description of a gentleman's back view with his uniform on. It may have been a very touching episode in the history of the late War, but so badly depicted that it should not have found shelter inside the building. It has been removed, and now these new pictures have come. Much might be said about them by way of criticism. I think the one that depicts the reading of the Wycliffe Bible is perhaps the most remarkable picture, and it might have been a good thing for the House if the artist, when he did that, had been left to finish the set. I am never more touched than when I looked at King John signing Magna Charta. It reminds me of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) dissolving his half-Socialist Cabinet. The artist has so arranged it that rain very respectfully falls on each side of the Royal Head, and he has added an awful atrocity in general artistic design by making the flag pole fall right on the head of the central figure in the picture. That, surely, looks like a Bolshevik rising somewhere. We have a battle in which all those who were employed have suddenly been told to pose for the artist. The artist's conception
of warfare is a very quiet arrangement. Right opposite we have this great Scottish picture. I am sorry that the subject has given rise to this heated discussion, because the artist is one of our most promising artists, and the picture, at least, does show a great mastery which I am looking forward to seeing developed in this country.
I would have been prepared to say I would not mind really what the subject was about if the picture expressed some real emotion on the part of the artist who produced it. That, in my opinion, is art. But I suppose it will be a long time before Members of Parliament become artists or appreciators of art. I think it is unfortunate that this little arrangement between Scotland and England on that particular occasion was chosen as the subject of the picture. I would not object personally, for I come of Irish parentage, and can speak with more ease on the position. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) told the House that in those days the cost of coming from Scotland to London was something like £500, and I am sure there are a number of Englishmen who would wish that the same fare obtained to-day. But the picture does seem to give offence not only to Mmbers of this House but to people who have visited the building. On more than one occasion I have heard expressions of opinion about it. If this incident did take place, whatever the virtues or vices of the incident may be, even Scotsmen should have the courage to look at their own history without blushing. Perhaps the present place is not the best place in which to hang the picture. It may be better to put it somewhere else where fewer Scotsmen will pass it.
The whole scheme of the decoration of this building calls for the appointment of a committee selected from this House to pull the whole thing together and to bring it into some harmonic unity. In the frescoes on the wall in the same hall done by Anning Bell one sees an attempt on the part of the artist to get back to the mosaics and to the simplicity of design. They are a great relief when you compare them with the mosaics in the hail leading to this Chamber, where you get a sort of lithographic relief. Perhaps if we had before now selected
a few Members of this House interested in these matters to consider the decorations on the building as a whole, these little incongruities might not have arisen, and this picture might not have been discussed to-night. I think, however, that on the whole it has been a good thing to have had the discussion, because I am quite sure that the English people have come to regard Scotsmen as passive patriots. I hope that we shall get a more notable subject for the next picture, and perhaps we shall hear more of the history of a great country which, my hon. Friend said, although it gained much out of the Union, the price she received for the Union was not high.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): Before rising to address the Committee, I had thought of raising a point of Order. My point of Order would have been to ask you, Mr. Hope, whether it is fair and in the interests of the generality of the Members of the Committee that a large number of history books should be removed from the Library of the House of Commons? I have refrained from putting that point of Order, because I felt it might be a very serious reflection on certain Scottish Members who would have proved by their keenness in obtaining these Scottish history books at the last moment that they had not a great deal of previous knowledge on the subject discussed tonight. At any rate, I must use that as my excuse for not taking part in the history of this particular picture, and for dealing more on the facts of the Vote which is before the Committee.
Before passing to what I may term practical politics, I would like to say one word in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who said that amongst other things, "bribery was the custom of the time." He went on to describe very vividly the riots which were taking place in the streets. He described the burning of effigies of the various Commissioners, and in many other gruesome ways he showed us the unpopularity of this Act of Union. What I want to ask him definitely is this. He is, surely, not going to hold my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works responsible for what happened in that respect more than 200
years ago? He said—and this was a point of which I took careful note—that Lockhart refused to sign the Treaty, and that there is an error in the guide book where it says he was one of the Commissioners who actually signed the Act. I would call attention to the difference of opinion between the hon. Member and Sir Henry Newbolt, one of the greatest historians of the day, and I hope Sir Henry Newbolt will make the necessary alteration in the next edition. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) said that we were not discussing the Union but the picture. Actually, I think, the question under discussion at the moment is whether or not my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works should have his salary reduced on account of some action which he has taken regarding this picture.
I would like, as I said, to return to practical politics. The Motion before the Committee is the reduction of the salary of my right hon. Friend because, I take it, of his responsibility regarding this picture. What is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend? Those who took part in the unveiling ceremony of these pictures will remember on that occasion the Prime Minister handed the pictures over to the Lord Great Chamberlain, who accepted them on behalf of His Majesty, and the Prime Minister handed them over to the First Commissioner of Works "for custody and maintenance." At that point only does the responsibility of my right hon. Friend come in. It is true that in a semi-public capacity my right hon. Friend had some small responsibility. I will quote from page 2 of the book to which reference has been made where it says:
The choice of the subjects was made by the present writer in consultation with Lord Peel, the First Commissioner of Works, Lord Crawford, the Chairman of the Arts Commission, and the Speaker.
The official list was only settled after long and careful deliberation. I am quite prepared to admit that my right hon. Friend had some semi-public responsibility in connection with the choice of the subjects, and of course he has authorised me to say that he will accept the fullest responsibility that can possibly be attached to him. The Committee knows that the First Commissioner would we the last person to attempt to shirk any responsibility of this or any other
kind. My right hon. Friend realised that there might be some question in the House as to the desirability of the subjects which had been decided upon, and immediately the decision was reached as to the titles of those eight pictures, my right hon. Friend arranged with me that a question should be asked in the House about these different subjects. A question was actually put down, and answered on the 17th December, 1925, and, in reply to that question, I gave an outline of the particular scheme.
In reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway), I gave the names of the artists, and I promised to publish the titles of the pictures at a later date. I have the actual answer in my hand, but I do not think I need give the actual words. I promised that the titles should be published at an early date, and the full tiles were actually published in all the leading newspapers on the 16th January, 1926. I have here many cuttings of the announcement, and this particular picture which is questioned to-day was described as "Queen Anne giving the Royal Assent to the Act of Union with Scotland, 1707." There was also placed after it the name of the artist, W. J. Munnings. This announcement appeared in the leading newspapers, the "Times," the "Morning Post," and the "Daily Telegraph." [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Daily Herald'?"] I said the leading newspapers. The "Daily Herald" had access to the information, and I understand that newspaper could have obtained the information from the "Glasgow Herald," which had a longer description of this event than that which appeared in the English newspapers. The fact is that the information was given in the newspapers in January, 1926, but in order to make certain that the Members of this House and the public outside should have full information as to the titles which were going to be given to these pictures, there was a reminder by way of question and answer in this House on the 23rd February this year.
In spite of the fact that the information was originally given more than 18 months ago when the titles of the pictures were given, it was not until the 30th June this year that certain Members of Parliament decided that the title of this particular picture was an act of
humiliation. My point is a perfectly clear one. If this title which was well known 18 months ago is an act of humiliation to-day, it was a greater act of humiliation then, because it was nearer the date when the actual humiliation took place. If it was an act of humiliation, it should have been noticed before this.
I want to say a word or two about those responsible for the choice of subjects. One of them was my right hon. Friend Lord Crawford, a great expert on matters of art and a trustee of the National Gallery; and another was Sir D. Y. Cameron, both of them Scotsmen. The donor of the picture who knew the title was himself a Scotsman. All these individuals I might say, with all due respect, are as patriotic as the hon. Member for Dundee.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I never said one word against the picture or the artist. In fact, I especially commended them. I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs to introduce a motive of that kind.

Captain HACKING: I did not mean to be offensive to the hon. Member. The point I was trying to make was that there are other Scotsmen who hold different views on this question from those held by the hon. Member for Dundee, and I said they were equally patriotic. May I suggest that possibly certain hon. Members who take up one attitude or the other may be biased in connection with this picture? On this question I think I can speak with a perfectly open mind. My father was an Englishman, my mother was a Scotswoman, and that union of England and Scotland, as far as I am concerned, was perfectly satisfactory. May I say that less than 20 years ago I have seen money pass between my father and my mother, and I never dared to call it bribery. It does not always follow that money which may pass from one person to another is necessarily money in the form of bribery.
Doubts have been expressed in this Debate as to whether there was actual bribery regarding the Act of Union. Even if there was corruption—and I am not prepared to admit it—I do not think, after listening to all the speeches that have been delivered, that that need prevent a picture of an act which has been of such value to both countries from being displayed in the Palace of Westminster.
What actually were the Scots giving up? We have heard many quotations to-day, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities has already said that the loss of the Scottish Parliament was not of very great importance. May I give another quotation which shows what was actually given up by the loss of the Scottish Parliament? It is from Hallam's "Constitutional History." I believe that Hallam was a very eminent historian—

Mr. MacLAREN: As dull as ditchwater.

Captain HACKING: He may have been as dull as ditchwater, but this is what he writes:
The best justification of those who came into so great a sacrifice of natural patriotism is that they gave up no excellent form of polity, that the Scots Constitution had never produced the people's happiness, that their Parliament was bad in its composition, and in practice little else than a factious and venal aristocracy.
If that were then an accurate description—I do not say that it was—of their so-called sacrifice, I see little for the hon. Member to complain about. I would ask again, is there to be no picture in this Palace of Westminster showing what at any particular time might have been considered to be an humiliation? If that is to be the intention and desire of the House, surely there are many pictures in the building that would have to be condemned. I am not going to mention them all, but just to give an illustration. There is a picture, I understand, in the Speaker's House today of Sir John Trevor. What do we read about Sir John Trevor in the book entitled "Gentlemen of the House of Commons"? I emphasise the word "gentlemen." It says:
He received from the Court large sums to buy those whom he could not bully into voting for the Crown. Trevor's rise had been remarkable; an ill-looking lad, with what was called Satanic squint, kept the door of a low-class lawyer's office; his employer apologetically explained of him, 'He is set there to learn the knavish part of the law.'
The historian goes on:
He showed his earlier proficiency in deciding the disputes of local gamblers; he then sneaked into St. Stephen's as member for a Court borough; exactly 30 years after the squinting urchin had kept the lawyer's door, he sat in the Speaker's Chair; in the
next reign, when that title became his by Statute, as the first Commoner of England and the greatest gentleman of the realm, he took his place in the retinue of William III and Mary. Within a week, however, of that event, he had to read aloud in the House of Commons its resolution that Sir John Trevor, for receiving a gratuity of one thousand guineas from the City of London, was guilty of high crime and misdemeanour.''

Mr. HARDIE: Is not that a reflection on the Chair?

Captain HACKING: It is no reflection on the Chair. What I am trying to prove is that Mr. Speaker does not consider, as a consequence, that that portrait is any reflection upon himself. We cannot accept the theory that an act of humiliation, even if it were an act of humiliation, should never be portrayed, especially when such success has resulted from the act. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities has already mentioned one point in which great benefit has accrued to England from the Union. He has already said that five of the last nine Prime Ministers have been Scotsmen, and I think he described my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister as half a Scotsman. One of those Prime Ministers was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure the hon. Member will not wish to decry what he has done for this country. In addition to the five Prime Ministers out of the last nine, the two present Archbishops of the Church of England, I understand, are Scotsmen. This Union between Scotland and England may have started badly, but it has produced enormous results, and I venture to suggest that it would have been actually an insult to Scotland if she had been left out of the great episodes representing the building of Britain. So far from its being a great humiliation that this picture should stand in its present position, it is in fact a great compliment to Scotland that it should be there.

Mr. HARDIE: Thank you, very much!

Captain HACKING: The real question in connection with this Act of Union as an historic occasion is, has it or has it not proved the wisdom of the parties who entered into the contract? The verdict of history is, surely, clear on that
point. The Union has been of unquestionable value to both countries. If I might say so, in spite of the interruption which I unconsciously drew forth from the hon. Member for Dundee, I would say that the happy relationship which exists between the Scottish and the English Members of this House is itself almost a sufficient justification of the wisdom of the event. I would ask the House to forget, if they can, any unpleasantness that happened more than 220 years ago. I am not, as I have said, going to state definitely at this stage that there was or was not corruption, but, even if there was, surely, after a period of 220 years, it is possible to forget any humiliation that there might have been at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities made an appeal. I would like, if I can find adequate words, to echo that appeal. I would ask the Scottish, and, indeed, I would also ask the Irish and the Welsh and the English Members of this House, to forget that they belong to any particular part of this country, but to remember that we all hold an equal heritage in a great and mighty and farflung Empire.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made concerning the overlooking of this matter for 18 months was, no doubt, a very strong one from his point of view, but I think a much more important point that has to be remembered by the Scottish people in that connection is that it has taken 220 years to bring about an agitation as to the necessity for a Parliament of our own. I am quite certain that the average Scotsman would be willing to let you have the picture if he could get the reality of the Parliament. There is no doubt in our minds as to the necessity for it. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) gave evidence of some of the old-time fervour and depth of feeling. I cannot say personally that there are so many Scotsmen who feel as keenly on the crisis at that, far-back date, but, taking the circumstances up to date, there is no doubt that the feeling is growing very strongly concerning the present situation. While that picture may remain as a remembrance of regrettable facts in days gone by, bribery was, as my colleague in
the representation of Dundee (Mr. Johnston) said, a habit of the time. It operates even to-day, not only in Scotland but in England, and is notorious in America. Undoubtedly there is need for a remembrance of the past to bring us to the situation as it stands to-day. The picture is one indicative of what took place between England and Scotland. It is not very creditable on the whole, but, looking at it from the standpoint of the days in which it happened, it is not astonishing to think that a matter of that kind was available for presentation from the historic point of view.
The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) referred to Bailie Nicol Jarvie. It will also be recollected that on the occasion of the Bailie secretly visiting Tolbooth Prison with Rob Roy so as to interview Mr. Osbaldiston of London, the Bailie explained on the lines of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ties of blood relationship which somewhat united them. On reminding Rob, however, that one magisterial word would involve the notorious visitor in trouble, the Bailie was emphatically informed that if he said that word the wall would be plastered with his brains. That settled it! Whatever may have taken place in the past, the present situation is that Scotland can hardly hold her own. She has no chance of getting her affairs attended to, and my contention is that it is most essential that Scotland should press for the same advantages which are enjoyed at present by our Colonies and the Irish Free State.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid that would require legislation.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. VIANT: I understand that this Vote has to do with these buildings. When this Vote was before the House on a former occasion, I raised the question of the stone that was used in the repair of these buildings, and I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of the Vote whether his attention has been drawn to the figures which have been given recently by the Medical Officer of Health for Portland, and the Medical Officer of Health for Derbyshire, as to the effect of the use of sandstone upon masons who are called to work it. The rate of mortality arising from the use of this stone is no less than 13.4 per
thousand, whereas the rate of mortality in the use of Portland stone is no greater than 1.2 per cent. In view of these facts, I would suggest that it is not too late for the Office of Works to reconsider their decision in respect of the refacing of these buildings. The high rate of mortality among those who had to use this sandstone warrants a reconsideration of the decision. We have no right to impose these conditions on those who will be expected to do this work when we can get

stone equally as good as this sandstone——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to the repair of these buildings. That comes under Class 7, Vote 3. It does not come under the present Vote.

Mr. VIANT: I beg your pardon; I was under the impression that I was in order.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £384,470 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 239.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[9.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, Walter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robed (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Johnston and Mr. James Brown.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Charleton, H. C.
Fenby, T. D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Christie, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Finburgh, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Forrest, W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Connolly, M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colone Francis E.


Astor, Viscountess
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cooper, A. Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Balniel, Lord
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gillett, George M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Barnes, A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grace, John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bethel, A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brass, Captain W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dixey, A. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Drewe, C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duckworth, John
Hammersley, S. S.


Brown, Brig -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dunnico, H.
Harland, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edge, Sir William
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hawke, John Anthony


Burman, J. B.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hayday, Arthur


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elveden, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Campbell, E. T.
England, Colonel A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H


Carver, Major W. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Cassels, J. D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hills, Major John Waller


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Holt, Capt H. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oakley, T.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Templeton, W. P.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Trevelvan (Middlesbro. W.)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Preston, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Radford, E. A.
Tinker, John Joseph


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Raine, Sir Walter
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ramsden, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Waddington, R.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Remnant, Sir James
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rentoul, G. S.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Long, Major Eric
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Looker, Herbert William
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Watts, Dr. T.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


MacIntyre, Ian
Ropner, Major L.
Wiggins, William Martin


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Malone, Major P. B.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Windsor, Walter


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Skelton, A. N.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Withers, John James


Meyer, Sir Frank
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Morrison, H (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Major Cope and Mr. Penny.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Strauss, E. A.



Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.

As amended, further considered.

CLAUSE 32.—(Application of 12 and 13 Geo. 5. c. 17. s. 21 to inter-connected companies.)

Amendment made; In page 21, line 32. leave out the words "that date" and insert instead thereof the words
the date on which the income apportioned as aforesaid to the members of the first company is deemed to have been received by them."—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Provisions for preventing avoidance of Super-tax by sale cum dividend, etc.)

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 23, line 9, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
This is the Clause which deals with the avoidance of Super-tax by sales cum dividend. Originally the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided that the taxpayer should only become liable to this Clause if the amount avoided exceeded 5 per cent. of the amount of tax which he would be due to pay in the year if the income from those assets had been reckoned as accruing from day to day. Very much to our regret, the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the percentage to 10 and the present Amendment is that the former figure of five should be restored. The right hon. Gentleman justified the course which he took on a previous occasion by suggesting that he was dealing in an earlier Clause with purchases cum dividend as the one side of the problem, and, as I understood him, in this Clause 33 the other side of the problem, namely, that of sales cum dividend was concerned. We tried to show, however, that on the earlier occasion we were dealing with the purchaser cum dividend and were seeking to avoid calling upon the Super-tax
payer for more than he was strictly bound to pay and that that was not, in the ordinary sense of the term, evasion at all; in fact, it was far removed from that altogether. But here we are dealing specifically with the question of evasion and we on this side of the House fail to see why you should only bring this Sub-section of the Clause into operation when the amount which has been avoided in Super-tax exceeds 10 per cent. of the sum for which the person would be liable, if the income had been deemed to accrue from day to day.
While we are dealing with evasion we should keep the amount of the unavoidable evasion, if I may so describe it, within the narrowest possible limits. We do not dispute that the Government are dealing with a very restricted part of the Super-tax operations in this country, but we must be very firm on any question of evasion. We are entitled to press that view in this connection, because later in the Clause there are ample safeguards for the Super-tax payer who finds himself in this position. If hon. Members will look a little further on they will see that this operates for all practical purposes only if there has been anything like a systematic attempt at evasion. Where the evasion is purely exceptional, this Clause will not apply at all, because all that the Super-tax payer requires to do is to satisfy the Special Commissioners on that point. I am unable to understand why the hon. Gentleman gave way on that, and we cannot for a moment concede that this is the other side of the problem to which he made reference earlier in the Debate, and accordingly I move that we restore the former figure of 5 per cent.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) will not allow the arguments which I used yesterday on the new Clause which I moved, Clause 33, to be a stumbling block to him in approaching the general argument. It is quite true that I said that the Clause which gives the taxpayer relief in certain circumstances was a counterpart to the Clause which was imposing a more stringent test upon the taxpayer in other circumstances; but when I said the one was the counterpart of the other I only meant that in a very
general sense, in the sense of showing that the Exchequer in its relations with the taxpayer was not animated by predatory motives, but was quite ready to consider the opposite side of the case where this could be proved and to make amendments which gave more advantages to the taxpayer where his claim was sustained by reason and by justice. This particular proposal must be dealt with on its merits. Originally we proposed that where there had been an avoidance of Super-tax by sales of securities cum dividend, and where that avoidance exceeded 5 per cent., that then the process set out in the Clause should apply. I have now proposed that it should be 10 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. I do not think that from the point of view of the Exchequer there will be any difference. The Clause as now amended will in fact be an effectual deterrent on the habitual practice of evasion. The cases we had in view, those of people making a speciality of avoiding Super-tax by selling securities cum dividend, will be quite fully dealt with by the 10 per cent. limit, just exactly as they would be by the 5 per cent. limit; and there is no doubt that the insertion of 10 per cent. will give a greater measure of reassurance to the general mass of ordinary traders.
The active flow and movement of our markets and exchanges in London and the provinces is a matter of great public importance. It inures to the advantage of the revenue through the Stamp Duty, and, generally, all this vast higgling of the market, inspired though it may be to a large extent by speculation, tends to the higher refinement of business and the more exact quotation of the actual value of any commodity or shares at a given moment, and it has never been our purpose to do anything to throw sand in the wheels of this swiftly-moving mechanism. That is the last thing in the world we want to do. The stock exchanges of this country are a great source of wealth and fame to this country as a whole, and I should be shocked beyond words if it could be proved that anything in this Measure introduced to safeguard the revenue had really thrown any impediment in the course of business. Still more would it be wrong to throw such an impediment in the course of business when the same results can be obtained by making a somewhat wider limit and when a far greater measure of reassurance
will be given to the commercial public as a whole. I cannot think we shall suffer in any way and I have reason to believe that by making this legislation apply only to the exceptional cases of habitual evasion the ordinary flow of business will proceed unchecked, and as a matter of fact the malpractices against which Clause 31, now Clause 33, was originally directed will probably be brought almost entirely to a close by the very existence of the provision which we now ask Parliament to pass.

Question put, "That the word "ten" stand part of the Bill.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. RADFORD: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment is in order, seeing that it would have the effect of increasing the charge?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is too late to put that point of Order now.

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 108.

Amendment made: In page 24, line 4, at the end, insert the words:
(7) For the purposes of this Section the expression 'assets' means—

(a) stocks or securities entitled to interest or dividend at a fixed rate only, not being stocks or securities the interest or dividend on which is dependent on the earnings of a company; and
(b) any other stocks or securities and any shares, if transactions in relation thereto have been effected by the individual otherwise than through a stock exchange in the United Kingdom and by a transfer on which duty has been paid at the rate of one pound per cent. under the heading 'Conveyance or Transfer on Sale' in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891."-[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Power to require returns of Income from all sources.)

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I beg to move, in page 32, line 13, after the word "individual," to insert the words
who in the opinion of the surveyor would be liable to be charged at a rate or rates exceeding the standard rate and.
We have just been discussing a Clause which obviously affects only a very limited number of people. But no one will suggest, if I read Clause 42 aright, that it does not touch an enormous number of people, many of whom are very small Income Tax payers. Its object is to bring within an Act which has so far applied only to Super-taxpayers the whole body of Income Tax payers, and the scope of my series of Amendments is to repel that encroachment on the work Of local Assessors and Commissioners which seems to be the main object of the Clause. As far as my recollection goes, there was practically no discussion at all of this exceedingly important Clause during the Committee stage. The Clauses in Part III of the Bill are put forward in the supposed interest of simplification and economy. I should be the very last person to object to any proposal that made for economy or simplification, but I am not prepared to accept even a supposed simplification at the expense of the sense of security enjoyed by the general taxpayers of the country. The whole theory of our Income Tax law is that the taxpayers shall assess themselves, with the help of local Boards of Commissioners and local Assessors, who approach their job as a rule not primarily from the point of view of Revenue officials but rather from the point of view of the general body of the taxpayers. It will hardly be denied that for a good many years past it has been the settled and deliberate policy of the Revenue officials to get rid of the whole work of the local Assessors and bring the work of assessment and collection of Income Tax into the hands of the Surveyors or Inspectors and the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. I have not a word to say against the way in which either the Surveyors or the Special Commissioners do their work. I have always found them perform a very disagreeable duty both with courtesy and consideration for the taxpayers. I have not a word to say against the way in which their duties are performed, but I
do venture to put it to the House that in this Clause we have an exceedingly important principle of Income Tax administration at stake.
The principal point at issue is this: Whether the payer of Income Tax is to be assessed and whether his tax is to be collected under the direction of local bodies of Commissioners—taxpayers like himself—or under the direction of a Government Department who are ultimately to receive the taxes. Most of the Members of this House will remember a very ill-fated Measure which was brought forward in the year 1921. It was a Bill known as the Revenue Bill, and it was proposed to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, including Excise and the National Debt, and for other purposes connected with finance. But the central point of this Bill was contained in Clause 7 under the head of administration. I will venture to read that Clause to the House. It runs thus, and the House will at once perceive why I emphasiee this point:
The office of assessor shall cease to exist and all general and particular notices directed by the Income Tax Acts to be given by the assessor requiring persons to make the returns shall be given by the surveyor within such time and in such manner as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue direct, and any such return shall be delivered to the Surveyor.
I am going to suggest that the Clause which is under the consideration of the House to-night is in reality an attempt —I will not use the offensive term, a camouflaged attempt—but it is an attempt to get by a side wind what it was not able to obtain by the Revenue Bill of 1921. Those hon. Members who were Members of the House at that time will, I am sure, remember the storm of opposition with which the Revenue Bill of 1921 was greeted, and, as a matter of fact, it did not even get to the stage of a Second Reading. The reason for the indignation which was aroused by that Bill, and which, I think, would have been aroused by this Clause if it was clearly understood, was admirably put by an authority to which at one period of his career, at any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would, I think, have paid considerable deference:
For the small taxpayer, for about 90 per cent. of the taxpayers, it"—
meaning the Revenue Bill of 1921—
is a serious business. It means that, instead of the personal touch of the local Commissioners, he will come in contact with the soulless machinery of a Government Department. The local assessor has been the small taxpayers' friend.
That is really the case I am putting to the House to-night. Clause 42 really represents, as I have suggested, a subtle attempt to do by stealth what the Bill of 1921 attempted to do nakedly and unashamed. The first objection which I urge to this Clause is that it really supersedes, or will in the long run supersede, the method of tax collection and assessment with which we are familiar and which is as popular as any method of tax collection is ever likely to be. I am now speaking on behalf of the small taxpayers and they represent a very large proportion of Income Taxpayers in this country; and they know that the assessor is a real friend to the small taxpayer and is regarded by them as a person who will help them in the many difficulties and ambiguities which they discover in Finance Bills.
There is a further point in this Clause to which I want to draw the attention of the House, and it is that this Clause as it is now drawn, will require not merely from the large taxpayers, but from all taxpayers, a full statement of their income. No such demand has ever been made upon them before except when claims for exemption or allowances have been made. My main reason for moving this series of Amendments is because it seems to me that the Clause as drawn represents a subtle attempt to do away with the General Commissioners and the local assessors as the assessing and collecting authorities. It will be observed that, besides my own series of Amendments, there is another series standing in the names of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and other hon. Members, which go much further than my suggestion, and I want to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend that lie will give very serious consideration, and, I hope, sympathetic consideration, to the very modest Amendments which I am asking him to accept. If my Amendment, be accepted, the Clause will be made to apply only to the large payers of Income Tax and Surtax. The small taxpayers, on whose behalf I am attempting to move this Amendment, will be released from the operation of
this Clause, and on that ground I beg to move.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who appear to treat this matter with a certain amount of frivolity, that it is a very serious burden for those who have to bear it. There are 4,000,000 Income Tax payers, and there are less than 100,000 Super-tax payers. This Clause, without the proposed Amendments, will hang up the whole of these 4,000,000 Income Tax payers for the sake of the convenience of the 96,000 Super-tax payers. None of them need make double returns. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer want simplification and single returns? Why does he not put them all, both Income Tax and Surtax payers, through the assessor? That is the true simplification. There has been an outcry for some years about the duplication of offices, and the Inland Revenue Department have seized upon that to get the whole thing into the hands of the Government officials. This is not the first occasion on which they have tried it. This is the ninth time since 1842 that they have tried to get hold of the small taxpayer and get him into the hands of the officials. They started in 1883, and again and again they have tried it. It is a very serious matter for the small taxpayer.
The theory of taxation is that the taxpayers meet and see what each other has to pay. That is done by the local commissioners, assisted by the surveyor, and they never come into contact with the Government officials at all. They are not dealing with what, with all respect, I might call a soulless tax gatherer; they are dealing with a number of people who know that they have to make up a certain sum amongst themselves, and they adjust it as nearly as possible. That is the only thing that has made Income Tax tolerable. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what the Royal Commission on Income Tax reported, but he knows well enough that the Royal Commission was permeated by the official element, and that it reported entirely on the lines suggested by the Inland Revenue officials. Local assessors and commissioners scattered over the country had no proper opportunity of putting
their views forward, and their views were never considered; it was merely the machine that was considered. I will give a case which shows what goes on.
The small taxpayer has the right to a good many allowances and abatements, and it is the assesor's duty to help the small taxpayer to get those allowances and abatements. It is no part of the surveyor's duty to do that, and he never does it, but the assessor does it. In one town the assessors were so faithful, realising that it was their duty to stand by the small taxpayer and see that he got what Parliament allowed him, that there were so many of these claims for allowances and abatements that the Inland Revenue Department actually sent down one of their officials to give the assessors a wigging and tell them to stop it. That is a very serious matter, but that is what was actually done, and I could produce one of the assessors here who was subjected to this influence. He told the surveyor, like a man, that he would obey the law, and that the surveyor could go about his business, for he would pay no attention to him. That shows perfectly plainly the difference of point of view between the mere tax collector and the assessor, who has to adjust the burden of taxation amongst the different people who are bound to pay it. In fact, if I might use a scriptural analogy, the surveyor is Zaccheus before he repents and the assessor is Zaccheus after he has repented.
That is the real position, and I object altogether to this proposal to take away from the small taxpayer the enormous benefits he has always had under the present procedure. It will not save any money, and there is no simplification in it at all. The taxpayers will have to pay the cost of the 150 collectors appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue, at a cost of £277 15s. per collector, while the cost of the assessors appointed by the local Commissioners is £118 a year, rather less than half. And they are local people who know all the circumstances and every detail about the individual taxpayer, which the surveyor does not know. If there is to be a simplification of the present system, it should be to remit the whole of this business to the assessors and leave the collectors to their proper function, which is to supervise the assessment, and, if they are satisfied that it is wrong, make their appeal to the Com-
Missioners.The whole purpose of this Clause is to ultimately eliminate the assessors altogether. They may be kept on for a time in order to do the work of the collectors, but as they go out one by one the inevitable effect will be that instead of there being any buffer between the people and the Government, we shall get practically to the oriental position, that the collector will be nothing but a tax collector, squeezing the last ounce out of the individual taxpayer and never giving the small taxpayer any counsel, or help or assistance, as to the various allowances which are granted him by Parliament. It will result in intolerable hardship on the small taxpayer. He cannot afford to pay accountants and lawyers to fight his case. The Super-tax payer can afford to do this. He can go to the surveyor. He walks up to him as an equal, and faces him. He can go to him openly, but the small taxpayer will never see the surveyor. The only person he will see is some clerk; that is all that will happen. If the Government allow this Clause to go through and the small taxpayers are subjected to the results which will inevitably accrue from it, there will be a day of reckoning.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the House has not been unduly alarmed by the two formidable orations to which we have just listened. There is no deep plot contained within the ambit of this Clause. There is no subtle scheme on the part of Somerset House to lay its claws upon the vitals of the poorest taxpayers of the country. There is no truth in the suggestion that this Clause has been smuggled through in the small hours of the morning without any competent person being present to discuss it. I believe this matter passed swiftly through the House because those most competent—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was not able to be present when this Clause was considered.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. and learned Member had not strayed so far from his invariable habit of the strictest attention to the duties of the House, and was not present when the Amendment came on, he is not in a position to blame those hon. Members who carried on the laborious duties as rapidly as possible.
At any rate, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) who is head of the Income Taxpayers' Society was present in the House at the time and, considering how very vigilant my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford is in his criticisms of matters connected with the Income Tax, and particularly how closely he is associated with the arguments on this aspect of the Income Tax, it was extremely satisfactory to me to find that he had no criticism of a hostile character to offer when this matter came up. The House was so impressed with his presence and his silence that they proceeded rapidly to accord this Clause the measure of support which, I am certain, on full consideration it will be found thoroughly to deserve. This Clause aims at relieving the taxpayer from an annoyance which he has long suffered. On every side we have been urged to simplify our Income Tax procedure, and pages of the Finance Bill are occupied with provision, which are complicated in appearance but which, in the result, will relieve the taxpayer from the continued annoyance of being served with repeated calls now from this quarter and now from that in connection with the payment of Income Tax. What is the principle of this simplification? It is the principle of one man, one return. We have heard of one man, one vote and now in another connection we have one man, one return—one return for Income Tax and Super-tax in the course of a given year. If we are to achieve that object, it is absolutely necessary that the issue of the return form shall be undertaken by an organised body of people who are subject to a single control and who cooperate with one another throughout the country and with the Special Commissioners who are entrusted with the assessment of the Super-tax.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: May I point out that my Amendment leaves the question of the Super-tax payers entirely unaffected?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Amendment of my hon. Friend cuts right across the principle of one return for Income Tax and Super-tax. It provides that there shall be one authority dealing with the returns from Super-tax payers and another dealing with the returns from Income Tax payers. Thus you would
have two authorities dealing with this particular aspect and two kinds of returns instead of one. In other words, it would destroy the kind of unification and simplification which we had in mind when these Clauses were prepared. They were not framed only by officials and members of the Government. They were framed in consultation with bodies closely concerned with and representing the interests of the Income Tax payers, and they were presented to the House as, to a large extent, agreed Clauses when they were originally introduced. I was saying when my hon. Friend interrupted me, that if you are to have one return, that return must be undertaken by an organised body of people, subject to a single control and co-operating with one another throughout the country. Those conditions cannot possibly be satisfied by the parochial assessors who are the servants of some 700 different bodies of local commissioners acting for separate geographical divisions and working independently of their colleagues.
What is this work which we are taking from the assessors and giving to the inspectors? It is purely routine work, no more than being a post office in this particular matter. There must be one centre from which returns are distributed and where they are again collected, and that is the only function that is being given to the inspector which he does not perform to-day. None of the other functions of the assessors is in the slightest degree interfered with by the proposals of this Clause. Indeed, words have been introduced into the closing Sub-section of the Clause which show that none of the other functions of the assessors will be in the slightest degree impaired. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and my hon. Friend who seconded it told us how the small taxpayer is in the habit of going to the local assessor as to a confidential friend and ally and consulting with him upon the difficulties of filling up his Income Tax return. We have recognised the advantages of this procedure so far as to insert on the return form the address of the appropriate assessor, in order that should the taxpayer desire to have this help, counsel and guidance he will readily know the quarter where it is available. The only alteration which we are making
is confined to a matter of routine; otherwise, all the functions both of the local commissioners and of their officers remain completely unimpaired by the introduction of this scheme for the simplification of the Income Tax, which, I have no hesitation in saying, complex though it looks in legal language, has commended itself to all the highest authorities versed in Income Tax problems but without connection with the administration who have been good enough to give long and careful attention to the subject.

Captain BOURNE: I very much regret that my right hon. Friend has not accepted the Amendment. The procedure under which the return is rendered to the assessors goes back to the very beginnings of our Income Tax law, and I cannot help thinking that if we are to have a simplification of the Income Tax law it would be much better to keep to the old proceeding and to send the returns to the assessor rather than to direct that they should be returned to the surveyor. There is one other point. This is a Clause to amend the Income Tax Act of 1918, and I suggest that it would be very much better if these Clauses dealing with the machinery for the collection of taxation had been introduced in a Revenue Bill rather than in the Finance Bill of the year. The object of the Finance Bill, as set out in its own Preamble, is to
grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
A Clause which deals solely with the machinery by which those taxes are collected ought not to come into the Finance Bill, the primary object of which is to raise revenue and to make a grant to the Sovereign of the money necessary for the carrying on of the public services. I feel that it does not give the House a proper chance of discussing these Clauses, which are intricate and require a great deal of consideration from many points of view, including the point of view of how they are going to affect the taxpayer. In a Finance Bill, we necessarily have to spend a great deal of time in discussing the incidence of new taxation. That is the object of a Finance
Bill, and it would be a very great improvement if in the future Clauses, which deal with the machinery of taxation and do not in themselves impose a tax but amend either a Revenue Act or the Income Tax Acts, should be introduced as a separate Measure to be dealt with by the House separately, and, if necessary, sent to a Committee upstairs.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I fear the right hon. Gentleman attached rather more importance than the House did on the last occasion to the silence of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) and not enough to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made a very eloquent speech in one sentence, when about One o'clock in the morning he was asked from these benches whether the Inland Revenue were taking any new powers under the Clause. His answer was short and concise in one sentence. He said, "No, there were no new powers." Since that time I am by no means as happy with that answer as I was that morning when I listened to it. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has pointed out that nine times something similar has been attempted, though previously it has been tried in other ways. The last occasion was in 1921, when the attempt was made to alter the balance between the assessor and the surveyor by a Revenue Bill. There is one great difference between a Revenue Bill and a Finance Bill. A Revenue Bill need not be passed in any year; a Finance Bill must be. It is much more serious to have a proposal of this kind, however simple it may look, in the the Finance Bill of the year rather than in a Revenue Bill. I regret the absence from the Treasury Bench to-night of one of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman. If I remember aright, the Member of the House who led the opposition in 1921 to a proposal not similar to this but akin to this was the right hon. Gentleman, who is at present Home Secretary and who represents Twickenham. Owing to his great eloquence and ability the proposal in the Revenue Bill of 1921 was defeated.
I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the system of assessing in England and Wales is the same as
in Scotland. As I understand it, the attempt last time was to abolish the office of Assessor of Taxes and to require all particular notices directed by the Income Tax Acts to be given by the surveyor. This Clause does nothing of the kind. What it does do in line 34 is to require the great bulk of the returns to be made to the surveyor and not to the assessor. I quite expect to see him in a year, or perhaps in two years' time, if he will still be there, or his successor, if he is amenable to the Treasury as the right hon. Gentleman seems to be and takes a purely Treasury point of view, come down to the House and say that these assessors have no work to do, that the great mass of returns that used to be made to them since that very bad day when the Income Tax was reimposed in 1842 are no longer made to the assessors, and that there is no need to have assessors at all. It is an important point, because the surveyors are Government officials appointed by the Inland Revenue, while the assessors are Government officials appointed, not by the Inland Revenue, but by the local Commissioners, of whom there are 700 bodies throughout Great Britain. I would ask the House to pay careful attention to what has been done under this Clause, because it seems to me that the Inland Revenue are doing in the Finance Bill and by subterfuge what they failed nine times previously to do in Revenue Bills and what they failed as recently as 1921 to do in the Revenue Bill of that year.
The assessors have very important duties. It is their duty to send out the notices requiring returns, to put on the church doors notices, to certify the assessments and to estimate a man's income if he does not make any return; a very important duty, and a duty which small Income Tax payers will need to watch very carefully before they permit it to go altogether out of the hands of the assessors and into the hands of people appointed by and controlled by the Inland Revenue, the central authority. It is their duty to deliver the particulars of the certified taxes to the knowledge of the Inland Revenue. It is also their duty to say if they think the assessments are inaccurate. In regard to Scotland, I understand the system is different. In the great majority of cases the assessor of taxes is a Government official appointed by the local commissioners
and not by the Inland Revenue, and he is also the surveyor of taxes. That is the point of distinction between Scotland and England and Wales. The most important thing in this connection is that he is not the servant of the Inland Revenue but the servant of the local commissioners.
The right hon. Gentleman will be wise not to pass the Clause in its present form and not to refuse the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). I do not feel inclined to agree to the passage of the Clause as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman, to use his own phrase, has deployed his troops in the Finance Bill of the year by a flank attack, but I prefer the frank and avowed attempt of 1921 and of previous years to take the post of assessor away by a direct frontal attack. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that there is no real desire on the part of the Treasury to take power away from the assessors, because they are regarded by the smaller taxpayers, as the hon. and learned Member for Argyll has said, as friends of the small taxpayer. Since there are only 95,000 Super-tax payers and more than 4,000,000 Income Tax payers, it is fitting, even at eleven o'clock at night, to give a little more attention to this point before we agree to the Clause in its present form.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. REMER: It is not often that I have a word to say in support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am rather disappointed with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), because he and his party have been claiming to be the apostles of economy throughout the country. I am also disappointed with the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), because I believe this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a real proposal of economy. For that reason, I give him my wholehearted support. What happens to any taxpayer, whether big or small, as soon as his return goes to the inspector of taxes? He may go to the assessor of taxes, but before the assessor is competent to give him advice he would have to go, and before the hon. and learned
Member for Argyll, the hon. Member for York, the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford or the hon. Member for Leith could give him advice, they would have to go to the inspector of taxes, who is the only man competent to give advice. That means that the inspector of taxes decides what the man is liable for in the way of taxation, and all the assessor of taxes does is to put a rubber stamp on one of the inspector of taxes reports, for which he gets paid a very large salary. I am sure the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who was a member of the Royal Commission and heard the evidence on this matter, will confirm me, when I say that it is a real economy in the public service and is a matter which I and my party ought not to oppose. I think my hon. Friends are gravely in error to-night in putting forward their Amendment.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I hope before this Clause is passed that the House will consider very carefully what they are doing. The whole basis of taxation of this country, in which there is less evasion than any country in the world, is the fact that the taxpayers have appointed their own assessors to supervise administration in this matter, and here we have a Clause which changes it, not by means of a Revenue Bill but by a Finance Bill, and takes away the power of these persons. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this is only the collection of forms. What is the good of having an assessor if somebody else collects the forms on which the assessments are made? How is he to judge as to the propriety of the assessment if he has not the forms? It seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum. It is the beginning of an insidious attack on the basis upon which taxation has been hitherto levied. We shall be told that there is no need for the assessor any more if these forms are to be sent to the surveyor. I do not see what the assessor will have to do, because he will have no documents with which to deal with these assessments. I hope the House will pause before passing this Clause.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 223.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[9.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elveden, Viscount
MacIntyre, Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
England, Colonel A.
McLean, Major A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fall[...], Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Apsley, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.


Astor, Viscountess
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bennett, A. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bethel, A.
Goff, Sir Park
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Betterton, Henry B.
Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brass, Captain W.
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hammersley, S. S.
Perring, Sir William George


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raine, Sir Walter


Carver, Major W. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Cassels, J. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chapman, Sir S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Remer, J. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hills, Major John Waller
Remnant, Sir James


Christie, J. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretlord)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.


Cooper, A. Duff
Illfle, Sir Edward M.
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Galnsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Long, Major Eric
Smithers, Waldron


Dixey, A. C.
Looker, Herbert Willlam
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Drewe, C.
Lougher, Lewis
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Duckworth, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Ward, Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wise, Sir Fredric


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Withers, John James


Sugden Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otiey)
Womersley, W. J.


Tasker,R. Inigo,
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Templeton, W. P.
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granvllle C. H.
Wragg, Herbert


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
white, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny.


Waddington, R.
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut. -Colonel George
Penny


Wallace, Captain D. E.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Groves, T.
Salter. Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleston, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro, W.)


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Edge, Sir William
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Fenby, T. D.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent)
Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Allen




Parkinson.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[11.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sprot, sir Alexander


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Strauss, E. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, Joseph


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton. J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Daiton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Woiverhampton, E.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thurtie, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Varley, Frank B.


Duckworth John
Macklnder, W.
Viant, S P.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


England, Colonel A.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wiggins, William Martin


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Greenall T.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfeil, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Grotrian, H. Brent
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Sir John Marriott and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Macquisten.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cooper, A. Duff
Harland, A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cope, Major William
Harrison. G. J. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hawke, John Anthony


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Ammon, Charles George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Apsley, Lord
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hills, Major John Waller


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Astor, Viscountess
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Holt. Capt. H. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N).


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Dixey, A. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cmuberl'nd, Whlten'n)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Betterton, Henry B.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)


Brass, Captain W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fermoy, Lord
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fielden, E. B.
Lawson, John James


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Finburgh, S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lindley, F. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Bullock, Captain M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Long, Major Eric


Burman, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lougher, Lewis


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lumley, L. R.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Gates, Percy
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen


Campbell, E. T.
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Carver, Major W. H.
Gillett, George M.
Macintyre, Ian


Cassels, J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Christie, J. A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Malone, Major P. B.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Colman, N. C. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive




Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nuttall, Ellis
Sandon, Lord
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Watts, Dr. T.


Pennefather, Sir John
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, A, M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Penny, Frederick George
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyan
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Perring, Sir William George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Potts, John S.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Preston, William
Stanley, Lord (Fytde)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wolmer, Viscount


Radford, E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Womersley, W. J.


Raine, Sir Walter
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde)


Ramsden, E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Remer, J. R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Woodcock, Colonel H. C,


Remnant, Sir James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wragg, Herbert


Rentoul, G. S.
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Templeton, W. P.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tinker, John Joseph



Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Robinion, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Rye, F. G.
Waddington, R.

CLAUSE 35.—(Supplemental provisions.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 2, leave out the word "two," and insert instead thereof the word "three."

In line 25, leave out the word "two," and insert instead thereof the word "three."—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 36,—(Application of last five pre ceding section's.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 26, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "six."— [Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 37.—(Charge of Income Tax at standard rates and at higher rates in respect of income above certain amount.)

Sir FRANK MEYER: I beg to move. "in page 25, line 37, after the word 'amount,' to insert the words 'for the following year.'"
It would be for the convenience of the House, and would certainly tend to
shorten the proceedings if I might be permitted, in dealing with this Amendment, to speak generally on the series of Amendments to this Clause and to Clause 41 which stand in my name, and then I need not speak on any of the other Amendments. The object of these Amendments, which are correlated, is to call attention to what is the result of these 'Clauses, which deal with what was Super-tax and what is to be in the future Sur-tax. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to these changes in the course of his speech introducing the Budget, he indicated to the House that their object was solely one of simplification. I have read through his speech with great care and I cannot find anywhere any indication that this simplification was likely to impose a new burden upon the taxpayer. I do not want to quote him in, extenso, but I would like to quote this sentence:
This assignment of Super-tax to a different year does not affect either the basis on which it is assessed, the rate at which it is charged, or the date at which it falls due for payment.
Anybody listening to that speech might well consider that no new burden was likely to be placed upon the taxpayer. On the contrary things were to be simplified for him. He was to make less returns, but the net result of the amount he would have to pay would be the same.
As a result, however, of these Clauses, 37 and 41, a new burden is placed upon the taxpayer. I shall put it in this way. As the law stands at present, if I were to be so unfortunate as to die to-morrow—I take my own case rather than anybody else's case lest anyone is superstitious—my executors would have to pay Super-tax for the proportion of the year from 6th April to 20th July, based on my income for the year ending on the 5th April last year. After these Clauses have been passed and have come into effect, which I gather will not be until the year after next, if I were to die on the corresponding date, my executors would have to pay Super-tax for the whole of the preceding year. I think that is so and, if the Chancellor can prove I am wrong, I will only be too pleased not to press my Amendments. I think that is the effect of these Clauses, and it does definitely add a new burden to the taxpayer, something in the nature
of bringing everything forward a year. It only takes effect after death, it is true, and therefore it is more in the nature of increasing the death duties than the Supertax. That is a fact that should be very widely and generally known, and for that reason I have put down this series of Amendments, which would have the effect, if accepted, that the changes in simplification of Super-tax would not add an extra Death Duty. In the words of the final Amendment which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members, it would provide that,
In the case of the death of an individual liable to Sur-tax during any financial year for which Sur-tax is charged a part only of the year's Sur-tax shall be payable-proportionate to that part of the financial year which has elapsed up to the date of the death of the individual.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to Second the Amendment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not quite sure from the speech of the hon. Member whether he is anxious to oppose altogether the principle which is embodied in Clause 37 and the other Clause which he is seeking to amend, or whether he does not quite appreciate the effect that would be brought about if these proposed Amendments were accepted. Clause 37 provides for a new basis of taxation, under which the Super-tax as we have hitherto understood it ceases to exist, and the Income Tax and a new Sur-tax are to form one tax upon the same basis. That is a process of simplfication which I think is very much desired in the country, and I have always understood that it was desired by this House. I do not know whether my hon. Friend objects to that principle or not. It is quite clear that if this Amendment and the other Amendments standing in his name were to be accepted they would frustrate that attempt entirely.
This particular Amendment by which he wishes to insert the words "for the following year," would cut at the very root of the proposal, by which the new Sur-tax is to be merely a final instalment of Income Tax for a given year. The other Amendments which are really consequential upon that, I do not refer to, because they would have the same effect. I do not know whether I need refer to the other Amendment to which my hon.
Friend has alluded, because I do not suppose he can move it unless he succeeds in carrying this one. In those circumstances I do not think it is necessary for me to anticipate the reply that could be given. They are all part of one system, the effect of which would be to destroy the simplification which we have in view, and against that, I feel certain the House would desire to support the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. MEYER: I do not desire to move the two following Amendments—in page 26, line 17, to leave out the words "for that year," and in line 18, after the word "income" to insert the words "for that year."

CLAUSE 41.—(Provisions as to date of payment, assessment, etc., of Sur tax.)

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I move to leave out this Clause because I feel that the House even now does not fully realise what it really means, and that it would involve an extra year's surtax. That is due to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making his Budget speech made it quite clear that this alteration was merely made in the interests of simplicity. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) quoted a portion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might have added these words:
The change is one of form rather than of fact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 83, Vol. 205.]
On the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Brighton (Sir Cooper Rawson) pointed out that this was an alteration which involved the payment of a further year's surtax and the Attorney-General replied in these words:
Under Super-tax, people paid the tax for a year less than they ought, for they have paid it not in the year they first entered it, but the year after. Now we are changing the system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1927; col. 754, Vol. 208.]
It seems to me that this is not merely a change in form but a change in fact, and it is a very substantial fact that every Super-tax payer during his life or his executors after him shall be asked to pay an additional year's Super-tax.
I wish to do the Chancellor of the Exchequer the greatest possible justice in this matter, and I am sure that he did not realise that that was the effect of this alteration. Had he done so he would not have stated that it was merely an alteration in form and not in fact, and he would have told the House how much revenue will be realised annually in years to come by this very important change. It is very difficult to estimate what the gain to the revenue will be. I have tried to ascertain, and approximately I think the revenue will gain to the extent of £3,000,000 per annum.
There is another aspect of this matter which deserves consideration. Super-tax was first imposed in the Finance Act of 1910, and it was payable in the year 1909–10. If the Super-tax payer lives for 20 years, during which 20 years Super-tax is imposel, he should be called upon to pay the tax for 20 years and not for 21 years. But supposing the taxpayer dies, say, on the 6th April, 1929, he will have lived for 20 years during which Super-tax has been imposed, his executors will be liable to pay Super-tax for the last year of his life, because that tax is payable on his previous year's income, and his executors must further pay tax for the year after he dies because that tax as a Surtax will be based upon the Income Tax payable during the last year of his life, so that actually the taxpayer himself or his estate, if we pass this Clause, will be required to pay tax for 21 years although the Super-tax has been imposed for 20 years only. That means that the liability to pay Super-tax hasbeen put back a year earlier than was sanctioned in the Finance Act, 1910, or if this Clause is passed now Super-tax will be paid twice in one year. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that this is a change in form rather than in fact, and in view of the fact that no estimate has been placed before the House as to the increased revenue to be derived from this extra tax in the years to come I think a case has been made out for the withdrawal of this Clause. If, on the other hand, it is desired in time to come to impose what really amounts to an additional Death Duty, then the House should be told what the real reason is. The simplification, to my mind, is not a good enough reason. We should be told
why this revenue is required and what is the amount it is going to produce, because there should be a very good reason for this additional burden on the already overburdened taxpayer.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Financial Secretary dealt with this matter partly in reply to the Amendment moved to Clause 37 by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). He gave in his reply the ground of simplification and did not really face the issue involved. The Super-tax payers number 100,000, and they pay £65,000,000 a year in round figures. About 3,000 of these people die in a year and as they are generally at their richest when they die, their share of the Super-tax is above the average and the figure of £3,000,000 suggested by the hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir E. Iliffe) is certainly near the truth. These people will pay about £50,000,000 in Death Duty, so, in effect, the Clause increases the Death Duty from £50,000,000 to £53,000,000, which is an increase of 6 per cent. on the average in the various rates of Death Duties. If it desired to increase the Death Duties by that amount, then it should be done in a manner whereby it could be discussed in all its implications and its effects on unemployment and on capital could be considered, but to introduce it by a side wind and accidently, as has been done, is another matter. I doubt whether the Chancellor appreciated what the simplification of the law would involve.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I fully appreciate the fact that while in certain directions the simplification scheme meant a loss to the Exchequer, in this respect there was a gain to the revenue of an almost exactly similar amount.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am glad to hear it was not done through ignorance. If that be so, it has been done through malice. That feature was not emphasised when the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his Budget Statement, or the subsequent Debates on the matter might have taken a different character if this had been realised earlier. The point made by the hon. Member for Tamworth is that it represents a material change and is adding to the burden of the taxpayer. [An HON. MEMBER:
"Shame!"] An hon. Member opposite says "Shame" I am one of those who regard most forms of taxation as injurious to business. I want taxation to be kept as low as possible, and I regard all forms of taxation which make saving more difficult as peculiarly disadvantageous, particularly for employment, and especially in the heavy constructive industries. For this reason, I have at all times when speaking on this matter said that some form of reduction of direct taxation would be a real stimulus to employment. I have preached that at election time, and I see no reason why I should not say it in the House of Commons. The Clause creates a grievance which should be met. It is rather a late stage in the Finance Bill to meet it adequately, because it can only lie met satisfactorily by an Amendment dealing with the liability at death. Nobody wishes to destroy the principle of simplicity, and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would involve him in some loss, presumably because he introduces it at a time when the Surtax will first be paid in a year of Tow profit, it ought to lead to substantial economies in administration.

Mr. CHURCHILLindicated dissent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman denies that the simplification will lead to any economy in administration. I think it ought to lead to such an economy. It seems absurd that where two sets of documents were being prepared and only one document is to be prepared in the future, it should not lead to a reduction of administrative expenditure. If it does not, there should be some re-organisation in the Department which deals with such matters.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friends in proposing this Amendment seemed to doubt whether the real purpose of this Clause was merely simplification or whether there was some subtle design of increasing revenue under the guise of simplification. I should like at once to reassure their minds on that point. There is, as far as we are able to judge, no net gain in revenue by reason of this alteration. It is quite true that in some regard there will be an increase in revenue; equally in some other regard there will be a loss in revenue, and, as far as we can ascertain the gain, on the one hand this will
about counterbalance the loss on the other. Perhaps the simplest illustration of the loss is by that virtue of the changing system Schedule E assessments are all to be made in future on the previous year's income, instead of on the current year's income as at present, and the result of this will be a very substantial loss of revenue to the Exchequer.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: It will not be a year less.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The result will be that the revenue will have just about the same income as if there had been no alteration.

Mr. HERBERT: There is an extra year's taxation in the other case.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The distinction is that in the case of people who come within Schedule E they will pay less Income Tax and Sur-tax than they would if the alteration were not made. They are put back one year as the scale goes up. The net result will be about to balance the extra amount. Therefore, if it were a matter of financial advantage, there would be no profit in making the alteration. I say frankly to the House that it cannot be the object of this law to gain some advantage to the revenue because there is no advantage to the revenue. The real and only reason for making the alterations, as has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Second Reading speech, and as was stated a few moments ago by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is to simplify Income Tax returns, not from the point of view of helping administration, but from the point of view of rendering the matter a little less complicated to the taxpayer. At present, as some of my hon. Friends have experienced, one is bombarded with requirements from different assessors in different parishes for returns of income. Sometimes you may have five or six or more applications for different returns in respect of different items of property. The result of these Amendments, when they have been carried into effect, will be that there will be a single return of the whole income which will be the foundation upon which the whole Income Tax liability of the taxpayer is assessed. By Income Tax, I mean the whole Income
Tax, which includes both the standard rate, which is equivalent to the present Income Tax, and the Sur-tax, which is the additional rate charged on the higher income.
The method of collection will be that the Income Tax will be paid on the 1st January, or by deduction in the year of assessment. With regard to the Surtax, there is a postponement of the date on which the money is to be paid to the following 1st January, which gives the taxpayer a year's grace, the reason for that being, both that the necessary calculations to assess liability will not have been done in time for an earlier payment in many cases, and also that if we were to insist on an earlier payment the result would be that in the year of change Super-tax payers would have to pay two years' tax in one year, and nobody would desire or expect them to do that. I have elaborated that because it is a little important that the facts should be understood. I should like to explain, as the point was made, that it is not true to say that if the taxpayer dies in the course of a year he has to pay Surtax or Income Tax for the whole year. He has to pay Income Tax and Surtax in respect of the income he receives in that year, because, through the ordinary provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which were incorporated, he will only pay his Surtax and Income Tax on the income which actually accrues to him during the year before his death. That being so, it results that in the case of all Super-tax payers who have come into that privileged class in any year since the first year of its imposition, they will pay Super-tax or Surtax in one shape or another for exactly the number of years for which they earned the Super-tax income. They will pay Super-tax or Surtax on the exact Super-tax or Surtax income which they received during those years, neither more nor less.
10.0 p.m.
It is true that at present a man pays for a less amount of income than he receives, and that anomaly is necessarily removed when you provide that the Surtax has to be paid on the income of the year just as the Income Tax is payable, but he pays on the actual income which he receives during the period that he is in receipt of Super-tax. Then it is said by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe) that those subjects who were so fortunate as to be already in receipt
of Super-tax income before 1909 have begun paying Super-tax in receipt of their income from the very first day of the Finance Act. The hon. Member says that those people pay more Super-tax than in the years during which the Super-tax was imposed. That just depends on whether you regard the Super-tax which was charged in the first year, when there, were great confusions and complications by reason of the political troubles that arose out of the Budget during the first two years, as imposed on the previous year when the income was earned, or on the year when it was charged and measured only by the previous year. The fortunate class to which the hon. Member refers do not pay Super-tax for more years than they have received Super-tax income. They pay it, calculated from the very beginning, in 1909, down to the time of their death, assuming that they had Super-tax incomes from the year before the Finance Act, 1909. I should like to remind my hon. Friend that these matters, although they have been dealt with in the present Finance Bill, represent proposals which will have to be put before Parliament before they become executive, and will need, of course, to have a Resolution for next year, because they do not take place until next year's Budget. If, therefore, it is found that any of my hon. Friends have not fully appreciated the effects of the various Clauses which are before the House—I admit, at once, that it is not an easy thing to understand the language of the Finance Bill; I appreciate it sofully that I have collaborated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in getting a Committee set up to make it simpler—if its effects have not been fully appreciated, there will be plenty of time before the necessary Resolution is brought forward next year fully to consider the Measure.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Compared with the economic profundity of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) I must confess my abysmal ignorance, and I rise for some enlightenment. Whenever there is any suggestion that rich people should be taxed, either before they die or after they die, we are always told, on the lines of the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, that the taxation of very wealthy people injures industry and
prevents employment. That argument has been put forward by the hon. Member to-night. I do not understand his point of view, and I confess my colossal lack of knowledge of the elements of political economy. I do profess, however, to have some idea of the principles of logic, and I really cannot understand why it should always be assumed that the only people capable of saving are those who have a lot of money; and that, if the money is distributed more widely among the people, the saving in that case cannot possibly be as large or as adequate.
I have been reading the newspapers this morning, and I find that every paper has leading articles and other kinds of articles on the subject of an exhibition which is being held in London, called the Advertising Exhibition. I read an account of a speech made by the Duke of York on the subject of advertising. The burden of those speeches was not the necessity for saving, but the necessity for spending. We are told that the art of publicity is an art which ought to be fostered, in order that people should be encouraged to spend their money rather than to save it. If that is really the point of view of business people, that people cannot buy goods unless they spend rather than save their money, and that the idea that the fortunes of very rich people must be conserved in order to provide by their savings the necessary capital for the fructification of industry, it savours very much of humbug.

Mr. HERBERT: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) into a disquisition on the comparative virtues of saving and expenditure, but I should like to get back for one moment to the point before us in this Clause. Nobody will quarrel with the simplification of the system of Income Tax and Super-tax—not even the lawyers. The complications will be quite sufficient to give them plenty of work for some time to come. But it is well that the House should clearly understand what the position here is between what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is going to be his loss and his corresponding gain. According to the Attorney-General, I think it is quite clear that the loss which the revenue will sustain is going to be not by any sort of remission of tax, but by means of a
lower yield in consequence of the change in the method of assessment. On the other hand, it is equally certain that the gain which is going to take place results not from an increase from the yield because of the change of assessment, but by the imposition of a definitely new tax. It is all very well to say that, if a man comes under the Super-tax class in a certain year and remains in that class for 20 years he only pays 20 years' Super-tax; but I remember, when the Super-tax was first introduced, that a great deal was made of the fact that it was a deferred tax, and that the taxpayer would have one year free. However, it is no use splitting hairs as to whether he pays for 20 years in 20 years or for 19 years in 20 years.
As the law has stood hitherto, a man pays the tax in one particular financial year on his income for the previous year for the present year. The result of this change is to be that what he pays in the present year is treated as a deferred tax belonging to the year before. The consequence is that when he dies his estate has to pay an extra year, which it has never had to pay yet under the law as it stands. I do not know that I am going to quarrel with that; at any rate, there is something to be said for it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to lose money in one way, no doubt it is his business to find it in another; but my grievance is that the matter has been introduced and brought before the House —I do not use this expression in an offensive way—almost under a subterfuge. I said a few words on the Amendment which was moved on this point on the Committee stage. The point was discovered by a number of accountants and other people who have to deal with taxes, and it was assumed to be an error in drafting. It was never supposed by anybody that this was intended to be a new tax until the Chancellor of the Exchequer frankly acknowledged in Committee that it was so.
When it was discussed in Committee, I made some reference to the Standing Orders of the House and said that apparently a new tax was to be imposed without a Financial Resolution. I was told that the explanation was that a Financial Resolution was necessary before it was actually imposed, but that the Clause
was not out of order because it was not to become operative until next year, when it would be covered by the ordinary Income Tax and Super-tax resolution, I have taken the trouble to make some further researches into that question and I am bound to say that the result has been that I am inclined to think, and anyone who has studied the matter carefully would agree, that it is in accordance with the rulings which have been given in the past on this particular subject. It is said that you cannot have a Financial Resolution until you are imposing a tax, and that when you are proposing a clause which is only going to impose a tax after it has been fortified by a Financial Resolution in a future year, that it would be unreasonable to have a Financial Resolution before the clause. But I think this is an occasion when the House should reconsider whether its financial procedure does not require some kind of reform.
The great virtue in these days, whatever might have been its origin, of the Financial Resolution has been that has given notice of an intended new tax and that the new tax can be discussed on the Financial Resolution. Here you have a definite case where the House only discovers when it is discussing a clause in the Committee that a new tax is being imposed. I was told that the House was getting even more warning than if this had been done by a Financial Resolution. But let the House see what actually happens. We get a Clause in the Bill sprung upon us without a Financial Resolution; we pass that, and we are told that it must have a Financial Resolution next year. But what actually happens next year? We will get an ordinary Financial Resolution to sanction the imposition of Income Tax and Super-tax, and then some few words are introduced into that Resolution including the provisions of the Finance Act of the previous year. Who is to understand from that unless they follow the thing very carefully, that by passing that Financial Resolution they are sanctioning and giving legal effect to an entirely new tax which has never been discussed on a Financial Resolution? If it were a bigger matter it might be one upon which the House could legitimately make a complaint.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. We are discussing Clause 41.We are
not discussing whether this is a Clause that needs a Financial Resolution. This matter having been raised on Committee stage, now on the Report stage it is not relevant whether this needs a Financial Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that this is quite relevant. The point which is made is that, although this Clause is not to become operative in the current year, it is leading up to a new tax, or a new assessment by a change in the method of assessment. It seems to me that that is a point which can be brought before the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that we are discussing Clause 41, and the hon. Gentleman is trying to make out that this ought to have had a Financial Resolution preceding it, instead of us having to wait till next year for the Financial Resolution. I submit that, this being the Report stage, while the matter might have been raised on the Committee stage, it is not relevant now, and that it is not in order to argue it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. It seems to me that this is quite a sound and relevant point to a Clause which is making a change in the method of assessment for taxation in the future year. It is quite true that it does not, according to our recent practice, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member, require a Resolution, but I am treating the point as one directed to the merits of the. Clause itself.

Mr. HERBERT: I had just come to the close of my remarks, and I would only add this in justification of what I am saying, that the absence of the warning which a Financial Resolution would have given, would have been a very good reason for supporting a Motion to leave out this particular Clause. I do not want to press that so far as I am concerned. All I wanted to do was to draw attention to what seems to me to be rather a recent development of our financial procedure which does not altogether tend to the control of this House over expenditure, and granting of money.

Sir E. ILIFFE: In view of the fact that we shall have a further opportunity to consider the matter before the Clause comes into operation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 44.—(Basis of assessment for Schedule E, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 36, line 36, at the end, insert the words:
(7) Where any person has ceased to hold an office or employment under a railway company or has ceased to be entitled to any pension paid by a railway company, such part of any tax assessed and charged upon the company under Rule 7 of the rules applicable to Schedule E in respect of that office, employment, or pension as cannot be deducted out of emoluments shall be collected and levied from that person or from his executors or administrators, as the case may be, as if he or they had been chargeable and charged with the said tax."—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Relief under s. 16 of Finance Act, 1907, in connection with certain settled property to cease.)

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause does away with the very small relief granted by the Finance Act of 1907 to certain classes of property. I do not wish to weary the House by going into any detail, nor could I argue whether this relief remains part of the Statute law of the land by an oversight or because it was part of the bargain or condition upon which a settlement of Estate Duty was done away with, but I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot leave this small relief in existence, for two reasons, and for two reasons only. One is that this relief, although a small matter, is of some value to that section of the com-
munity upon which the burden of Estate Duty falls admittedly with special hardship. It is especially severe because of the very small ratio the revenue from settled land, particularly rural real property, bears towards its capital value upon which Estate Duties are assessed, and when it is out of the power of a tenant for life to dispose of the property it is very hard that he should have to bear an additional heavy burden, because the property, which is out of his disposition, is aggregated with his own private property for the purposes of Estate Duty. My second reason for framing the Amendment is that my right hon. Friend has on snore than one occasion stated that the whole incidence of the Estate Duties upon rural property requires reconsideration and revision and that he hopes to undertake this task shortly. With a general revision of the question pending it is rather hard to remove a relief, however small, from that section of the community that suffers more severely than any other from the incidence of Estate Duty.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
On a former occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in referring to this Clause, said it was simply one to remove an accident, and that because it was only a little accident which did not very much matter, we should accept it and pass it. He told us the whole amount of the revenue involved is about £300,000. He naturally wished to do his
best not to make it bear more hardly on the taxpayer than was necessary, but in his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us it would come to £1,000,000. When he comes to actual definite figures he gave £800,000 as the full result of one years revenue. But the argument that has been given on two occasions for the passing of the Clause is that it is an accident, that it had escaped the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and that it ought to be remedied at present. It never was an accident. It was deliberately left out in 1894, and it was deliberately left out again in 1900, when it was laid down very clearly by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach that this Clause is the outcome of a careful inquiry by very competent persons, and never has been an accident. It is really not in accordance with the dignity of the House to maintain that all Chancellors of the Exchequer, from Lord Oxford, the leader of the Liberal party, right down to the predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, have really allowed this accident to go on. I think really it has gone on because of the very justice of the case that has been raised by my right hon. Friend in proposing the Amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given away very little during the Budget Debates—nothing that will cost the Exchequer very much. Here is a Clause which is unjust and wrong and which has never been proposed by any of his predecessors, and surely, at the end of the Report stage, he might do something to help the Unionist and Conservative party by giving them some small comfort for the work they have done in supporting him so loyally throughout the whole of these Debates. I ask him to remember, at any rate, that this Clause goes absolutely dead against one of the great principles of our party, and that it will do no good and must inevitably do a great deal of harm to employment in this country.

Mr. McNEILL: I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt that he could hardly trust himself after the eloquent appeal of my hon. and gallant Friends behind me, and he has, therefore, entrusted me with the duty of resisting the Amendment moved at this
late hour from the benches of the Tory party. I am not sure that I could conscientiously carry out that duty if I thought that by accepting the Amendment I should be doing anything for the Tory party. I do not think that Members of the Tory party should go on the dole. It is not necessary again to explain the historical reason for this particular anomaly which is being removed by this particular Clause, which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked to be deleted. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) referred to it as if it was an accident, and said we had been defending our action all through on the ground that the particular anomaly had been overlooked by an accident, and he gave a number of dates to show that it was not so. My hon. and gallant Friend entirely misunderstood the ground upon which we are basing our action. No one ever suggested that in the years to which he referred there had been any accident at all. The point is this, that in 1914 when the whole basis of the liability of certain lands to Estate Duty was reviewed and overhauled and put upon a completely new footing, these particular lands—and they are comparatively few in number—were not in point of fact dealt with. There was no reason why they should not be dealt with and from that time, undoubtedly, it has been through an oversight that this anomaly has continued up to the present time. An appeal has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two grounds. The first was that there was a special severity of burden resting on settled property. I admit that is so. I admit that that species of property has a very strong claim for reconsideration with regard to taxation and perhaps for legislation.
The whole point here which is overlooked is that we are not dealing with settled property as a whole, but merely with a very few settlements that happen to have been made before 1894. Any particular burdens which may be upon them, or any economic difficulties which have been referred to have no force when brought forward against a proposal for dealing with these particular settlements on exactly the same footing as every other settlement. A statement has been attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which it is said he asserted that the whole principle of the Estate
Duty required reconsideration and review. That may very well be the case, but that cannot be a reason for singling out settlements which are merely exceptional, and saying that those particular settlements which were made before 1894 shall be treated for the purposes of taxation on a totally different footing from other settlements which in the year 1914 were placed upon a new footing which was intended to cover all settlements, and which does not apply to any one class of taxpayer, They are really asking for the continuation of an exceptional privilege which is placed upon a very small section of the property.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Government are in a very humiliating position. We have seen a revolt of Members on the Conservative benches, and this has created a position in which we have been told the whole Conservative and Unionist benches are in danger. I rise to take part in this discussion in order to make a suggestion which may take the Government out of their difficulties. My suggestion is that in order that there may be time given to the Government to get some harmony in the ranks of their supporters I would like to move the Adjournment of the Debate until the Government are able to get the support of its own Members in this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Motion for the Adjournment not accepted?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion.
Amendment negatived.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Amended Rates of Duty in the case of certain Mechani cally-Propelled Vehicles.)

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, in page 44, line 47, at the end, to insert the words:
The following shall be inserted at the end of the paragraph:
For the purposes of the foregoing paragraph (c), a vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture shall not be deemed to be used otherwise than solely by that person for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies by reason only that on an occasion when the vehicle is being used by that person for that purpose it is also used for the conveyance for some ether person engaged in agriculture of the produce of, or articles required for the purposes
of, agricultural land occupied by that other person, if it is shown—

(a) that the vehicle is so used only occasionally;
(b) that the goods conveyed for that other person represent only a small proportion of the total amount of goods which the vehicle is conveying on that occasion;
(c) that no payment or reward of any kind is, or is agreed to be, made or given for the conveyance of the goods of that other person."

The House will remember that during the Committee stage a certain scale of duties was imposed upon agriculturists who kept motor vehicles for use on the land, and were given a somewhat lower scale because of that fact. This Amendment is only to ensure that the intention of the House shall be carried out.

Amendment agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE. — (Amendments to Finance and Income Tax Acts.)

Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 49, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
In paragraph 8, after the word 'member,' there shall be inserted the words 'so far as assessable and chargeable to Super-tax under Section twenty-one of this Act,' and the word 'his,' where it first occurs, small be omitted.
This Amendment is purely consequential on one that was passed last night.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

Amendment made: In page 50, line 29, at the end, insert the words:


8 and 8 Geo. 5, c. 40.
The Income Tax Act, 1918.
Sub-section (8) of section eighty and sub-section (2) of section eighty-four. —[Mr. Churchill.]

Bill to be read the Third time upon Friday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Hall-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.